ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Post Office Card Account

Danny Alexander: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the future of the Post Office card account in Scotland.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues.

Danny Alexander: The contract for the new Post Office card account should be awarded to the Post Office because of its unrivalled geographical reach. If towns and villages across Scotland lose their post offices, they will often lose their shop, their only source of pensions and cash, and vital support for vulnerable people in those communities. Will the Minister make the Government understand that to take the Post Office card account away from the Post Office would be a betrayal of those communities?

Ann McKechin: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but as he will appreciate, we are currently undergoing a tendering process and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that process, which we hope will complete later this year. I remind him that 27 bank or building society accounts can already be accessed through the post office network. We are committed to the idea that the universal access criterion must have priority.

John McFall: The Minister will realise that it is crucial that the Post Office is put on a sound financial footing. For the next four or five years, POCA must be instrumental in ensuring that that is the case. Otherwise, sub-postmasters will voluntarily close post offices and we will find that our financial inclusion targets will not be met as a result. Will the Minister keep those comments in mind when she is discussing the issue with her ministerial colleagues?

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend has a strong record of supporting financial inclusion and I certainly take his comments on board. The fact that we have spent nearly £2 billion on the post office network since 1999 and are committed to a further £1.7 billion up to 2011 shows that we want to ensure that there is a strong, sustainable post office network that will be maintained not only now but beyond 2011.

Michael Weir: Is the Minister aware of the letter written by George Thomson, the general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, which sets out huge concerns about the delays in making a decision on POCA? POCA is important for sub-post offices, and the letter says that 10 per cent. of their income comes directly from POCA. The post offices are also the last financial institution in many of our villages following the withdrawal of the banks, which are receiving huge sums of Government money. Will the Minister impress on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the importance of a quick decision in favour of the Post Office?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have supplementary questions, not speeches.

Ann McKechin: The hon. Gentleman rightly indicates that the need to maintain universal access, particularly in rural areas, is important. That is why we have maintained a strong rural network: 95 per cent. of the rural population must be within 3 miles of a post office. However, it is also important that we have a sustainable network. The markets are changing and so are people's shopping habits. That is why we are awaiting not just the tender process, which is required under EU law, but the Hooper review, which will point us in the direction that we must follow to ensure that we have a sustainable universal access network.

Ben Wallace: May I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister to their offices? I want to place on record my appreciation of the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns). He was a helpful and able Minister, and I shall certainly miss him.
	At this time, our post offices need certainty, stability and an indication that they have a financial future. The Government's deadline to receive those bids finished in March and for eight months we have had no announcements. If the Post Office loses this contract, the real losers will be our rural communities and dozens of post offices up and down the country. Is it not the case that the delay in the announcement and the very scheduling of the Glenrothes by-election at the same time as the presidential elections have nothing to do with the good people of Fife and everything to do with saving the political skin of the Prime Minister?

Ann McKechin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm remarks of introduction and welcome, but I think that he got beyond himself. Last week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions firmly rejected any suggestion that there was any coincidence between the tender process and the by-election. The tender process is a complex legal issue that requires appropriate time and consideration. It is inappropriate for any Minister to interfere with or comment on that process. Unlike the Opposition, who wish to slash public spending, we have shown firm public commitment to the post office network throughout our tenure in government. The fact that we have invested £3.7 billion in that network is plain proof of that fact.

Banking Sector

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet the First Minister to discuss the future of Scotland's banking system.

Peter Bone: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the operation of the banking sector in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: I am in regular contact with the First Minister and discuss a variety of issues. The Scottish banking system is now well placed to combat these difficult times after the significant intervention by this Government to stabilise the market.

Henry Bellingham: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment? Does he recall that the First Minister said earlier in the year that an independent Scotland could look forward to an "arc of prosperity" based on Ireland, Iceland and Scandinavia and underpinned by Scotland's "world class" banks? Will he remind the First Minister in a telephone call today that the Scottish banks would not exist today if the UK Government had not moved quickly, and if they had not been underpinned by English taxpayers in our constituencies? Will he also remind him that it is time for him to abandon completely his misguided campaign—

Mr. Speaker: Order. When there are long speeches instead of supplementary questions, other Back Benchers are going to be squeezed out.

Jim Murphy: I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome for my appointment, and to place on record again my appreciation of the work done by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne).
	Although this is my first time at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Scotland, I know very well that I am not accountable for the words, deeds or actions for Scotland's First Minister. However, I am aware that he has compared Scotland to Iceland, Ireland and Norway. Of course, Iceland is now bankrupt as a country, Ireland faces an austerity budget— [ Interruption. ] I hear an hon. Gentlemen shouting, "Tell us about Norway!" Well, the Norwegian Foreign Minister has today told us all about Norway, and said that the Scottish National party must stop making vacuous comparisons between Norway and Scotland.
	Finally, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) talked about English taxpayers subsidising Scottish banks, but he will be aware from his insight into his own constituency that the Royal Bank of Scotland-NatWest has four branches in his area, and HBOS has one. This is an international problem that needs international solutions. It affects all our constituencies, including his own.

Peter Bone: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his well deserved appointment. He has moved from defending an indefensible Union to upholding a vital Union. Does he agree that the Scottish banking sector has fared better in this financial crisis because Scotland is part of the UK than it would have done had Scotland been independent?

Jim Murphy: I absolutely agree. The UK has invested £37 billion in Scotland's banking sector, and that is greater than the entire Scottish Government budget. The entire cost of the investment package is estimated at £100 billion, which is more than the annual budget for the whole of Scotland. I disagree, of course, with the hon. Gentleman's earlier comment. We spent many long months debating whether the UK would be better off outside the EU, but I think we all now agree that Scotland is better off in the UK.

Gavin Strang: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his active involvement in the banking crisis? Does he agree that the futures of the Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland are of huge significance to Edinburgh, the south-east of Scotland and to the Scottish economy as a whole? Will he continue to work with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to support the banking system and above all to sustain as many financial sector jobs as possible in Scotland for the long term?

Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend has a long history of campaigning on these issues, and he has taken a close interest in the current difficulties faced by Scottish banks and banks throughout the UK. I look forward to discussing these matters with him in further detail over the weeks ahead. Unfortunately, however, some people involved in international banking and banking institutions in the UK took reckless decisions that put at risk other people's savings and mortgages. While risk is an essential part of a market, taking irresponsible risks with other people's well-being must come to an end.

Jimmy Hood: May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new appointment as Secretary of State for Scotland? I am delighted to see him at the Dispatch Box. Does he agree that the Scottish banking situation is so important that we cannot just leave it to Adjournment debates in the House of Commons? Will he therefore have a word with the Leader of the House to have a Scottish Grand Committee called as quickly as possible, so that we can discuss the matter?

Jim Murphy: Serious times call for serious measures. Where I can, I try to say clearly that as Secretary of State for Scotland I will work with anyone who is working on behalf of Scotland, which is why I convened the first ever gathering of CBI Scotland, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the First Minister to demonstrate that, where we can, we should be working together. That is the approach that I shall take every day in this job.
	We have to look for additional ways to discuss the problems facing Scottish banks, and if my hon. Friend thinks that calling the Scottish Grand Committee is part of the solution, I look forward to his making that case. I would of course have no hesitation in appearing before the Scottish Grand Committee.

Alistair Carmichael: On behalf of my party, I welcome the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary to their new positions and pay tribute to their predecessors. They left the Government in different circumstances, but they gave distinguished service to the Government in their time and I very much hope that they will continue to be part of Scotland's political debate.
	Has the Secretary of State seen reports in  The Scotsman today, indicating new interest in parts of the HBOS group, namely from Clerical Medical and Insight Investment? Does he accept that that is a further alteration to the situation that pertained when the takeover by Lloyds TSB was first mooted and, accordingly, that it requires to be looked at again seriously? In that context, will he urge his right hon. Friend Lord Mandelson to publish the Office of Fair Trading report so that if we are to abandon competitiveness in the banking sector we at least know why?

Jim Murphy: We wish to see stability in the banking system in Scotland, throughout the United Kingdom and much more widely. Part of that stability would guarantee security for savers, investors, mortgage holders, staff and small businesses across the UK. The argument that HBOS's business model would not be able to survive the current economic climate has been well rehearsed, but the fact is that only one concrete offer is on the table. That is an issue for the boards of the two banks and the shareholders—it is not for the Government to dictate—but although there is press speculation about other bids, there is only one firm bid on the table at the moment.

Anne McGuire: I, too, add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his new position as a full-time Secretary of State for Scotland.
	I do not want us to underestimate the importance of the comments made by the Norwegian Foreign Minister, reported in today's press. When my right hon. Friend next meets the First Minister, will he raise those comments and expose the credibility of the First Minister's arguments? Perhaps he will go one step further and say not only that it is economically unsound to make those comparisons but that it is economically illiterate.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. On behalf of everyone on our side of the House, I pay tribute to her for her brilliant work over nine years as a member of the Government in various posts. She is right to draw attention again to the comments of the First Minister. In his first speech as First Minister, he said:
	"Scotland can...be part of northern Europe's arc of prosperity. We have three countries, Ireland to our west, Iceland to our north and Norway to our east. We can join that arc of prosperity."
	It is no wonder that many commentators now talk about an arc of insolvency—the SNP vision of a North sea bubble has well and truly burst.

David Mundell: I begin by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new role. It is particularly welcome on the Conservative Benches that there is once again a stand-alone Secretary of State for Scotland. Scotland's interests cannot be adequately represented in the Cabinet along with those of the armed forces or any other nation or region of the United Kingdom.
	May I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and briefly pay tribute to the two predecessors at the Department? The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Calman commission, which will benefit all the people of Scotland. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) lost his job for speaking the truth, and he is not the first Member of this House to have done so. In that vein, I share the Secretary of State's views about the irresponsibility of the First Minister's comments on the "arc of prosperity", but does the Secretary of State agree that the Prime Minister was equally irresponsible to claim that boom and bust had been abolished? Did that not contribute to the devastating effect of the credit crunch on the Scottish banks?

Jim Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for putting on record his appreciation for the work of my predecessor, and for his kind words of welcome to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and me. The fact is that Scotland is stronger in the United Kingdom at times of difficulty, and more prosperous in the United Kingdom at times of economic prosperity. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the Prime Minister's contribution. The fact is that the UK is showing the world
	"the way through this crisis."
	The shadow Secretary of State guffaws at that comment, but those are not my words; a gentleman called Paul Krugman, the winner of the Nobel prize for economics, made those comments earlier in the week. Whose economic judgment should I accept—that of the hon. Gentleman or that of a winner of the Nobel prize for economics? I will let the House make that judgment for itself.

Economic Situation

Sandra Osborne: What recent discussions he has held with Scottish Executive Ministers on the condition of the economy in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: I called a meeting last week with the Scottish Government, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and CBI Scotland to discuss the pressures in the Scottish economy. I also sit full time on the UK Government's National Economic Council.

Sandra Osborne: I am grateful for the fact that one of the Secretary of State's first acts in his new post was to agree to come to Ayrshire to discuss with local businesses their concerns about the current financial situation. In his recent discussions with the First Minister, the CBI and the STUC, did they discuss support for those who have recently become unemployed, not just in the financial services sector but in places such as the coalfield area in my constituency, which suffered mass unemployment during the dark Tory years?

Jim Murphy: I look forward to visiting Ayrshire shortly. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that unemployment went up across many parts of the United Kingdom last week, after years of growth in employment. In response, the British Government published a £100 million training plan, the Welsh Government published a £30 million training plan, and the Scottish Government issued a press release. That is not the action of a serious Government. The fact is that there are enormous challenges, and one such challenge in the current economic crisis is to ensure that those who are economically on the bottom rung of the ladder do not become dislodged and take a generation to recover. I am determined to work with everyone and anyone, across Scotland, to make sure that that does not occur.

David Mundell: I welcome the meeting that the Secretary of State had last week with Scottish business leaders and trade unions. Is it planned that such meetings will be held regularly? Did he use the opportunity to ask Scottish businesses whether they would be better served by the Government borrowing to pay for increased spending on unemployment benefit, which is what his party wants to do, or by our taking the immediate practical steps on VAT and national insurance for small businesses that the Leader of the Opposition set out in his visit to Glenrothes?

Jim Murphy: Of course we intend to repeat the meeting, and CBI Scotland will host the next one; that is a welcome step. The fact is that net debt was 43 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1996-97, and today it is 36 per cent. The UK's net debt is lower, as a percentage of GDP, than that in the euro area and in all G7 countries except Canada. It is important that we borrow to invest in public services. That is a striking contrast with what happened under a previous Government, who invested in failure. Unemployment was at 3 million; incapacity benefit trebled; and unemployment was considered a price worth paying. That price will never be paid, and is never considered worth paying, by a Labour Government.

Brian H Donohoe: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position as Secretary of State. Given recent economic events, is it not the case that the First Minister of Scotland could be compared to an eight-year-old child with a bean rack?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The First Minister is a Member of the House, and temperate language should be used.

HBOS and Lloyds TSB

Stewart Hosie: What discussions he has held with ministerial colleagues on the proposed merger of HBOS and Lloyds TSB.

Jim Murphy: The merger of HBOS and Lloyds TSB is a commercial decision for the boards and shareholders of those banks. We want stability in the UK banking system and protection for savers, mortgage holders, staff and businesses.

Stewart Hosie: I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister to their new positions, and would like to put on the record the admiration that our party had for their two predecessors.
	I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. The merger of HBOS and Lloyds TSB will, of course, have to be voted on by shareholders; I understand that the meetings will take place in mid and late November. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that all the information should be available to the shareholders before the votes take place. Will he impress on the noble Lord Mandelson, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the need to publish the Office of Fair Trading report on competition in advance of the shareholder meetings?

Jim Murphy: It is important that we have a wide conversation about Scotland's economy and Scotland's future. Again, the matters mentioned are for the boards and shareholders of those two great institutions.
	Until now, the Scottish National party's argument about economics has relied entirely on oil and Iceland. Every family in Scotland knows that a household budget cannot be organised on enormous fluctuations in oil prices, which stood at $150 a barrel a year ago and now stand at $59 a barrel. Iceland as a country is on the verge of bankruptcy. On the particular point about the banks' merger, I should say that it is important that information should be available and that shareholders should make their decisions in an informed way.

Ian Davidson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position. Will he work with the Unite union to make sure that the jobs of those in the banking industry throughout the United Kingdom are protected? Spivs and speculators have been destroying jobs in the industry, and we do not want to lose any more.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is right: it is important that we should have such conversations with trade unions. That is why on the very day when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his announcement about bank recapitalisation, I invited both the trade union Unite and the trade union Accord to meet me at the Scotland Office in Edinburgh. We discussed the type of issues that my hon. Friend has rightly raised today.

Malcolm Bruce: Is the Secretary of State not forgetting that British taxpayers are about to become a shareholder in HBOS and that they should have a view on the matter? Given that competition rules are being set aside, is it not important to ensure that every possible option—including maintaining HBOS as an operating entity in its own right—is considered, to ensure that consumers have the full range of choice in the future?

Jim Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There has been enormous UK taxpayer investment in saving those two great financial institutions. I think he will agree that only through the power and influence of a United Kingdom Government and a UK economy are we able to make such enormous investment in those institutions. Lloyds has confirmed that the HBOS part of the business will continue to use the Mound as its Scottish headquarters and that it will continue to publish Scottish banknotes. I remind the House again that there is currently only one offer on the table which can be considered by the board and the shareholders—and that remains a fact, regardless of any press speculation.

Energy

Anne Begg: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the energy sector on Scotland's future energy needs.

Ann McKechin: Meetings are currently being arranged with the energy industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will also be attending the oil and gas UK supply chain conference on 12 November in Aberdeen.

Anne Begg: I am glad to hear that because obviously the oil and gas industry is important for Aberdeen and the whole economy of the north-east of Scotland. I hope that there is a long future for the industry in the North sea— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is so unfair—the hon. Lady must be heard.

Anne Begg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that there will be a long future for the offshore oil and gas industry, which is so vital to the economy of my constituency. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a mistake to base a whole economy on a very volatile resource?

Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend has a fine record of working for the oil industry in Aberdeen and for her constituents. As she rightly points out, the oil industry remains a vital industry in Scotland, but it is important that it has a stable investment and tax structure, which the UK framework currently provides. The oil fund to which the First Minister has made reference has suddenly disappeared from his press releases, and now we have the request for £1 billion regurgitated from six months ago. I think we can all draw our own conclusions.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Adrian Bailey: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 October.

Gordon Brown: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Adrian Bailey: Small businesses, which are essential to jobs in my constituency, are suffering from high raw material prices, high energy prices and, in some cases, reduced demand. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that the support that we have given to the banks is reflected in the support that banks give to small businesses during this difficult time?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Central to the recovery of jobs is the resumption of lending by banks to businesses. I discussed that not only as a national problem, but a problem in many countries, with President Sarkozy when I met him last evening. We have all taken measures to recapitalise our banks and to ensure stability. We continue to work on increasing access to funding. Having recapitalised the banks, we want to ensure that they will extend availability of credit at competitive prices. Further announcements will be made tomorrow when we have a meeting with the banks.
	We are also considering new mechanisms by which, for example, the European Investment Bank can give financial support where traditional institutions are not able to do so. We urge banks not to change the terms and charges for existing lending to small businesses in our country. The President and I also talked about the role of fiscal policy in the future. I have been discussing that with other leaders. It is right that fiscal policy supports monetary policy at this time.

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister wants to help small business, he can start by cancelling his plan for putting up the rate of corporation tax for small business.
	In the past fortnight we have learned that housing repossessions are up 71 per cent., unemployment is rising at its fastest rate for 17 years and the economy is shrinking. Will the Prime Minister now finally admit that he did not abolish boom and bust?

Gordon Brown: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman: we have had the longest period of growth in the history of this country. We have created 3 million jobs during that period, and we have been able to double public investment in education, health and transport. If we had taken his advice, we would not have nationalised Northern Rock and we would not have taken the action to deal with the problems of HBOS and other banks—and he would have loosened the regulation on banks at a time when everybody is saying to increase it. I am not going to take any advice from the Leader of the Opposition on these matters.

David Cameron: How can the Prime Minister not admit that there is an economic bust when 120 homes are being repossessed every day and when the Bank of England says that 1.2 million people are going to go into negative equity? If he cannot admit what he got wrong in the past, why will anyone listen to him about the present or the future?
	Let me turn to the Prime Minister's fiscal rules, which allowed him to pile up this huge borrowing in a boom. He said that his fiscal rules were
	"the basis on which I think people have seen this Government as competent".
	He said that they were right for every stage of the economic cycle, and he absolutely guaranteed—that is the word that he used—that he would not break them. Does he accept that the fiscal rules are now dead?

Gordon Brown: First of all—[Hon. Members: "Answer!"] I think that the Opposition should listen for a minute, and maybe they will learn something. First of all, the cause of the crisis that we are facing started in the private banking sector, not with national Governments. If the Leader of the Opposition does not understand that that is the problem, he will not be able to come to a proper solution, because the solution lies in recapitalising the banks, then ensuring that they start lending again. If we could have a sensible debate about the matter across the Floor of this House, and he removed the partisan way in which he is dealing with it, as he promised to do— [ Interruption. ] He was the man who was going to end the Punch and Judy show, and he was the man who was going to have a bipartisan approach.
	As for the fiscal rules, we have met them in the last 10 years. If I may remind the right hon. Gentleman, borrowing has been 1 per cent. under the Labour Government during the last 10 years; it was 3 per cent. under the Conservative Government. They broke the roof; we fixed it.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister says—[Hon. Members: "More!"] There's plenty more.
	The Prime Minister says that he wants us to listen; we have been hearing about his fiscal rules for 10 years. He stood there and lectured us about the brilliance of his fiscal rules. Why will he not now admit that they are dead? Let us just remember them—he used to be so proud of them. Rule 1 was, "Only borrow to invest"; now he is having to borrow to pay for unemployment benefit. That rule is dead. Rule 2— [ Interruption. ] They do not like being reminded about their own fiscal rules. They used to enjoy the lectures so much. Rule 2 was, "Don't have debt over 40 per cent. of national income." Even on his own fiddled figures, that rule is now dead. Why will he not admit that the rules failed to deliver responsibility in the good years and that, as soon as the bad times came, they collapsed completely?

Gordon Brown: May I just remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said only a few days ago? [Hon. Members: "Answer!"] It is important to the issue. He said:
	"Borrowing...is inevitable and you have to allow that to happen. Those automatic stabilisers as Keynes called them, those have to operate."
	He is saying that, but the shadow Chancellor said this morning in a newspaper that borrowing is the wrong approach. The right hon. Gentleman said a few days ago that it is the right approach. When will they get their act together and show that they have one coherent policy?

David Cameron: The Prime Minister cannot tell us whether his fiscal rules are alive or dead or in some sort of suspended animation. We have established that he has broken his fiscal rules, and we have established that he led the economy from boom to bust; now let us look at what he is going to do about it. Does he agree that you cannot spend your way out of a recession?

Gordon Brown: I just repeat what the right hon. Gentleman said. [Hon. Members: "Answer!"] If he said:
	"Borrowing...is inevitable and you have to allow that to happen. Those automatic stabilisers...have to operate",
	that means we have to spend in a way that takes us through this economic crisis. If he does not understand what he said a few days ago, perhaps his meetings with the shadow Chancellor during the past few days have not been about economics at all.

David Cameron: I asked the Prime Minister whether he agreed that you cannot spend your way out of a recession. Why did he not just say yes? I have a quote for him. It is something that he said in 1997—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Oh, it was 10 years ago, so it does not count—is that the new rule? This was not some off-the-cuff speech; it was at the Labour party conference, as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said,
	"we have learned from past mistakes...you cannot spend your way out of recession".
	Is not the truth that the Prime Minister has been going round telling everyone that he is the new John Maynard Keynes with a plan for a spending splurge? Meanwhile, the pound has fallen further than in any previous devaluation, and the Chancellor is having desperately to back off. So can he confirm: is he planning a spending splurge or not?

Gordon Brown: And he is quoting Keynes. I thought the right hon. Gentleman said that he supported Keynes on when the automatic stabilisers should work. Let me remind him again of the Conservative party position. The person who shadowed for the shadow Chancellor last week said in an interview to the BBC:
	"To increase borrowing to deal with an economic downturn—that's a perfectly sensible thing to do."
	A few minutes later, he said:
	"Increasing borrowing is not a strategy for dealing with the recession."
	The Conservatives are nowhere on policy to deal with the problem.

David Cameron: So that is the new fiscal rule—never answer the question. The Prime Minister has been caught red-handed—he spun a line about a spending splurge to try to look as if he had a plan, but the Treasury Secretary said that the Government would not "increase" but "maintain" spending. He has been caught irresponsibly spinning about irresponsible spending. Is not the truth that he has got not a plan but a giant overdraft? Is it not the case that thousands of people are losing their homes and their jobs because the Prime Minister's irresponsible boom has turned to bust?

Gordon Brown: The thousands of people in our country who are worried about their homes and their jobs will want to know that they have a Government who are prepared to take the action that is necessary to deal with the problem. The Conservative party says that borrowing is the wrong approach; I say that it is right to take the action that is necessary to lead us through the difficulties. The Conservative party has no policy. It is not prepared for government—it is not even prepared for opposition.

Joan Walley: I know that the Prime Minister has a lot on his plate, but I would like him to know the outcome of the referendum in Stoke-on-Trent last Thursday. The people voted to go ahead to have a leader and a cabinet to run the council from next summer. In these difficult times, will my right hon. Friend give the people of Stoke-on-Trent his assurance that the Government will do everything they can to work in Stoke-on-Trent to draw a line, move forward and deal with all the economic issues that we face?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has spoken to me about those things on several occasions. It is right that all parties work together to come through the difficult times. We will do whatever we can to help the industries of Stoke come through the difficult times that they face.

Nicholas Clegg: As we heard earlier, the Prime Minister does not seem to distinguish between good public spending and bad public spending. At a time when every penny of public money needs to be spent wisely, he wants to waste £13 billion on an NHS computer system that does not work, £12 billion on a surveillance database, which will spy on everybody in the country, and billions more on ID cards. He could redirect all that money to the things that people really need in a recession: homes for hard-pressed families; good child care, so that people can go out to look for work; and training for people who have lost their jobs. At a time when all British families have to rethink their spending plans, is it not time for him to rethink his?

Gordon Brown: I do not recognise the figures that the right hon. Gentleman gives us. The only figure that matters in this debate is that the Liberal party wants to cut £20 billion out of public spending. That would be the wrong course for this country.

Nicholas Clegg: This country is in much worse shape than I feared if it has a Prime Minister who cannot tell the difference between redirecting and cutting public money. Grandiose plans for public spending might help in the long term, but low and middle-income families need more money in their pockets right now. Why does he not have the courage to close the multi-billion pound tax loopholes that benefit only the wealthy? That way, he could deliver big tax cuts for people who desperately need help. It would not require extra Government borrowing, it is fair and it would be good for the economy. Why will not the Prime Minister give people on ordinary incomes some of their money back?

Gordon Brown: We have been closing tax loopholes in every Budget for the past 11 years. We are putting an additional amount of money into the economy: 22 million people are getting a tax cut of £120, the winter allowance will be £250 for over-60s and £400 for over-80s, and we are helping low-income families with their fuel bills. The right hon. Gentleman cannot wish away the policy that he announced at his conference: to cut public spending by £20 billion. That is the wrong policy for this country at this time.

Gordon Marsden: Last week in Blackpool, I sat down with my further education college to discuss its £100 million Government-funded redevelopment and its hopes for higher education expansion, which are both key to Blackpool's regeneration. What can the Prime Minister now do to accelerate investment in such projects, as part of his strategy to combat the economic downturn, as opposed to the Opposition, who do not have a clue?

Gordon Brown: We are continuing to spend huge amounts of money on regeneration and education, and that is the right thing to do—to prepare and equip ourselves for the global challenge that lies ahead. It is also right that we raise the education leaving age to 18, to enable people who are in work at 16 and 17 to get skills one day a week, to enable people to access part-time learning as well as full-time learning and to give opportunity to all, not just to some. I regret the fact that the Liberal party and the Conservative party seem to be for opportunity for some. We are for opportunity for all.

George Young: In his first statement to the House after becoming Prime Minister and in the Green Paper on the constitution that accompanied that statement, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to rebalance power between the Government and Parliament. He said that he wanted Parliament to have a greater ability to hold the Government to account. Two weeks ago, the Government announced that the House would sit for 128 days next year—the smallest number of sittings in a non-election year since the second world war. Does he see any tension between those two propositions?

Gordon Brown: We moved power from the Executive to the legislature; for example, in decisions about peace and war, and also decisions about treaties. That is what I meant. If the House of Commons can do its business efficiently in 128 days, that is the right course of action.

Alison Seabeck: My right hon. Friend is very aware of the anxiety felt by many small investors in Icesave. We all have constituents with their life savings there. Mine have told me that they are anxious about developments and they are not being told very much, particularly about the structure of the scheme. Can my right hon. Friend confirm please that progress is now being made on the compensation scheme and that investors will be kept advised?

Gordon Brown: The Financial Services Authority has made an announcement about how it will deal with the problems that are faced by UK retail investors in those Icelandic banks. That statement was made last week and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about these issues.

Philip Hollobone: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is an absolute disgrace for the Black Police Association, which has been in receipt of substantial public funds, actively to discourage black and Asian people from joining the Metropolitan police?

Gordon Brown: We want to encourage more black and Asian people to join the police and we will continue to do that. Obviously I will look into what the hon. Gentleman says about the association, but it is important that the message goes out from all parties in the House that we want as many black and Asian people as possible to apply to join the police and to be recruited.

Linda Gilroy: The Prime Minister will know that there is currently a large deployment of men and women serving in Afghanistan from Plymouth and the south-west. What assurances can he offer them, their families and the House that the Government will continue to invest in the equipment that they need to match the professional skills and dedication that they bring to the very difficult job that they do on our behalf?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has done a great deal, visiting Afghanistan and representing many of her constituents in her area. One of the issues in Afghanistan that we have had to deal with is the provision of properly protected vehicles for our armed forces. I am pleased today to be able to announce the planned investment of more than £700 million to deliver new and improved protected vehicles to our armed forces, particularly in Afghanistan. We will be buying 700 new vehicles and upgrading more than 200 more. In the face of new and developing threats, that will mean that our armed forces have the best practical protection for the work that they do. I hope that all parts of the House will favour that.

Paul Holmes: Yesterday, along with other Derbyshire MPs, I met the chief constable of Derbyshire and the police authority. By their own admission, the Government underfund Derbyshire police by £5 million a year. As a result, Derbyshire is the fourth lowest funded police authority in the country and has the 14th lowest number of police officers per head of population. Will the Prime Minister order an inquiry into this travesty and ensure that the people of Derbyshire receive the funding and the police numbers that his Government say that they need to ensure public safety?

Gordon Brown: There are more police in this decade than at any time in our history, and more community support officers. That has been possible only because we have doubled the budget on police in the past 10 years. Not only do we have more police, but crime has come down as a result of their visible presence on the streets. We would not be able to afford the police services that we want in any part of the country if we took the advice of the Liberal leader to cut £20 billion out of public spending.

Robert Wareing: Is the Prime Minister aware that, between July and September this year, the BP oil company made a profit of £6.4 billion? When many pensioners and poor, vulnerable people in my constituency are suffering and wondering how they are going to pay to heat their homes this winter, is it not about time that the Government introduced a windfall tax on companies such as BP?

Gordon Brown: We have applied a levy to the utility companies to enable us to spend more on heating for pensioners and others in the winter months. The fact is that oil prices are coming down. Oil is now $60 a barrel, whereas it used to be $150, and it is important that those price cuts are passed on to all customers. We cannot take the advice of the shadow Chancellor on this matter. He resurfaced—or tried to resurface—with a statement that the price of petrol should go down, yet his fuel duty stabiliser would mean that the price of petrol would now automatically go up by 5p a litre— [ Interruption. ] He cannot deny it. That is why people doubt the judgment of the Conservative party.

Andrew Robathan: In 1976, the United Kingdom was humiliated when the last Labour Government had to approach the International Monetary Fund to be bailed out. Should—God forbid —this Labour Government similarly have to go to the IMF for a bail-out, would the Prime Minister resign?

Gordon Brown: I think the hon. Gentleman should be remembering 1992, when the present Leader of the Opposition stood beside the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and, having tried to set interest rates at 18 per cent., they were unable to keep Britain in the European exchange rate mechanism. That led to 3 million unemployed, and that is the moment that the Conservatives should be remembering.

Paul Farrelly: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that vulnerable workers should be free from exploitation, whatever the economic climate. Will he therefore join Labour Members in welcoming the adoption of the temporary agency workers directive by the European Parliament last week? That follows two private Members' Bills in this House: my own and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), who has also pursued this issue. Will my right hon. Friend now outline to the House how and when the directive will be implemented into UK law, so that it can be of benefit to up to 1 million such workers up and down the land?

Gordon Brown: Members on both sides of the House should remember that the CBI was also supportive of this arrangement. We will bring forward legislation in the next Session of Parliament to implement it. As is the usual practice with EU directives, there will be a detailed consultation on the UK implementation. I think that, given the agreement that has been achieved across business in this country, both sides of the House should support the agency workers directive.

Peter Robinson: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the decision by the Army to organise a homecoming parade in the city of Belfast? Does he recognise that the troops from Northern Ireland who have performed so well and so bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan come from both sections of our community? The decision taken by Sinn Fein to run a counter-parade and protest is therefore all the more preposterous, and has heightened tensions in Northern Ireland as a whole. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging people in Northern Ireland to ensure that we have a peaceful Sunday, and that everyone has due respect for the role that has been played by our brave troops, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan? I have seen the role that they have played in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and the work that they are doing in mentoring the Afghan army. Will he urge everyone to do nothing to drag us back to the bad old days?

Gordon Brown: I want every Sunday to be a peaceful Sunday in Northern Ireland, and I want us to work together to ensure that we can undertake the remaining stages of the devolution that will make stability for the longer term possible. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the troops in our armed forces deserve the support of every community from which they come. Where there have been parades in the different cities and towns of this country, not only have they been peaceful but large numbers of people have turned out because they want to give support to our troops and show them that they have the confidence of the British people. I want that to be a feature of our life in every part of the United Kingdom for many years to come.

Colin Challen: In these difficult financial times, I know that we have to extract value for money wherever we can and that difficult decisions will have to be made. We also face the threat of climate change, which puts extra demands on the economy and what the Government have to finance. May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my early-day motion 2351—"Climate change and the UK's contribution to the Kopernikus satellite programme"? It is a very important scientific programme to monitor, given the impact of climate change— [Interruption.]—so would it be possible for me and a small delegation of British scientists to meet the Prime Minister to discuss the importance of this programme to the UK economy?

Gordon Brown: I am very happy to do so, and I must say that I thought climate change was an issue that both sides of the House wanted to take action on. We recognise the importance of understanding and monitoring climate change. No decision has yet been taken on the level of UK funding, but a final decision will be taken in advance of the ministerial meeting in late November. I applaud my hon. Friend for everything he has done to raise these issues—through the European Space Agency's programme and the wider work that he does on the environment. I used to think that the Tories supported a green policy, but now I am not so sure.

Mark Prisk: The Prime Minister says that he wants a third runway at Heathrow, so why are his Ministers lobbying against that, yet remaining part of his Government?

Gordon Brown: We said as a Government that we supported a third runway in principle. After all, there are five runways in Amsterdam, five in Paris and four in Frankfurt—and we are talking about only a third runway at Heathrow. We also said, however, that we would look into all the environmental considerations, which is what we are doing at the moment. We will come back to the House in due course.

Ian Cawsey: This morning, together with other hon. Members, I attended the David Black award, which is a celebration of the British pig industry and quality standard charter marks. They support farmers who are committed to high animal welfare, quality control and traceability of their products. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that Government procurement figures show that 76 per cent. of bacon products and 39 per cent. of pork products do not come from quality pork standard mark suppliers? As my right hon. Friend helps out different sectors of industry, will he ensure that procurement supports British farmers? If the Government do not stand up for them, why should anybody else?

Gordon Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning on behalf of that industry. Everybody knows that British bacon is best.

John Butterfill: The Prime Minister will be aware of the widespread public concern about foreclosures on mortgage properties, particularly by banks such as Northern Rock. Is he aware that some other debts—unsecured debts such as those on store cards—are being purchased by debt factoring companies, which are then applying to the courts for attachment to properties, subsequently obtaining possession of them for trivial debt? Is that a correct interpretation of the law, and if it is, does not the law need to be changed?

Gordon Brown: I am aware of that problem; we are looking into it. I believe that changes will be needed in practice.

Karen Buck: Representatives of small businesses in my constituency are still contacting me to say that new loan arrangements are either being refused by the banks or agreed on harsher terms. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do what they can to ensure that the agreement with the banks feeds through to small businesses?

Gordon Brown: This is the central issue that must be dealt with in the next few days. We have given liquidity to the banks and recapitalised them, so now we must have their resumption of lending. If that can be achieved by their taking new decisions to lend, that is exactly what should be done. At the same time, we will look into other instruments through which banks or other financial institutions can give money to small businesses to increase their cash flow. We will look at everything necessary, so that further to the recapitalisation of the banks, we have the necessary resumption of lending.

Richard Taylor: I tried to phone Postwatch this morning to ask how to appeal against some of the post office closures in my area only to find that Postwatch had effectively ceased to exist—before the consultation had concluded. Is that fair?

Gordon Brown: I know that appeals made against closures have been successful in 44 cases. I will talk to the hon. Gentleman about how he can direct his own appeal.

Margaret Moran: On Monday, a family living in my constituency almost lost their home as a result of a 3 per cent. increase in their fixed mortgage rate, a bank that refused to negotiate, and a judge who told them to get it over quickly. Will my right hon. Friend, as a matter of urgency, redouble his efforts to make it clear to both banks and judges that we will intervene to safeguard homes, and that, unlike the Conservative party, we will not leave our families to sink or swim?

Gordon Brown: It is for precisely the reasons given by my hon. Friend that the judiciary have issued a new instruction that repossession must be the last resort, not the first resort, and that banks must consider alternative means of funding and other means by which mortgages can be paid over a longer period if necessary. I hope that we will also deal with some of the problems faced by people in the same position as my hon. Friend's constituents.
	We are changing the point at which unemployment benefit can be supported by mortgage interest repayment help. The new system will begin on 1 January, and will apply to people who have been unemployed for 13 weeks. We are taking the actions that are necessary, including, from the beginning of January, buying up old houses that are on the market so that we can encourage the housing market to move forward. I believe that we are taking the policy initiatives— [Interruption.] The Opposition may shout, but they have no policies.

Food Labelling

Richard Bacon: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for relevant information about food, including information about the country of origin, contents and standards of production of that food, to be made available to consumers by labelling, marking or in other ways; and for connected purposes.
	The first occasion on which I sought the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to require clearer labelling of food was in 2004. I was certainly not the first Member to seek to introduce such legislation, and many Members throughout the House have supported the proposition that consumers should have clearer, more accurate and more honest information about the food that they buy than is currently required.
	Since 2004, interest in local sourcing and local production of food has grown significantly. The issue of food miles has become more prominent in political discussion, and the importance to consumers of higher animal welfare standards has continued to increase. Only this morning, on the BBC Radio 4 programme "Farming Today", an egg farmer spoke of his continued shift towards free-range hens for egg production, because that was what consumers wanted.
	Attempts to improve the law continue. My own Bill has support from Members on all sides of the House, and I note that next week my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) will seek leave to introduce her own food labelling Bill, which I understand focuses mainly on nutrition and health issues. It will complement my Bill, which, as well as providing information about the content and production standards of food, will ensure that information about the country of origin of different foods is included in labelling.
	Consumers should have the information that they need to make informed decisions about the food that they buy. A wide range of issues may rightly concern them when they make their purchasing decisions, including the nutritional and calorific value of food, the salt or fat content, the animal welfare standards according to which food is produced, and the country of origin. Any food labelling regime must seek to address those various concerns. It is important that all food producers adhere to the same high standards applied to food labelling, and the best way in which to achieve that is through a statutory framework.
	The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 require food to be marked or labelled with information such as the name of the food, a list of its ingredients, the amount of an ingredient that is named or associated with the food, an appropriate durability indication, any special storage conditions, the name of the business and manufacturer, and in certain cases, the place of origin, as well as the process used in the manufacture and instructions for use.
	In July this year, the Food Standards Agency updated its guidance on the use of marketing terms such as "fresh", "pure" and "natural", but there was nothing new on country of origin labelling, although the guidance continues to draw attention to regulation 5 of the 1996 regulations, which requires
	"particulars of the place of origin or provenance of the food if failure to give such particulars might mislead a purchaser to a material degree as to the true origin or provenance of the food."
	Currently, country of origin labelling must comply with the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which make it an offence to label any food in a way that falsely describes it or which is likely to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality. However, neither Act defines how much British involvement is required before produce can be sold as British.
	The specific expression "country of origin" is not defined in the 1996 regulations or in the food labelling directive 2000/13/EC. However, the approach taken in section 36 of the Trade Descriptions Act is that, for the purposes of the Act, goods are deemed to have been manufactured or produced in the country where they last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change. This is likely to include the manufacture of bacon or ham, for example. However, at present, consumers are being misled. Pork that has been imported from Denmark and then packaged in the UK may be called "Product of Britain".
	The problem can apply to other food products, too. Butter churned in England using milk imported from Belgium should not, supposedly, be labelled "English", but it can lawfully be described as "produced in England from milk". Norwegian salmon that has been smoked in Scotland should not, supposedly, be called "Scottish", but it can lawfully be described as "salmon smoked in Scotland". Slaughtering in this country would count, so that "British lamb" could mean imported lambs slaughtered and packaged in the UK. Products can be labelled as "produced in the UK" when all the ingredients come from outside the country. There is concern that some companies have taken advantage of these slack regulations, and label their products with the Union Jack accompanied by slogans such as "traditional British food" or "great British recipe" when, in fact, they are not produced in this country.
	There is, obviously, a duty on consumers to read the labels in the first place, but there is also a need to prevent labels, presentation and other information from being misleading about the product. Country of origin is an area where there is particular potential for consumers to be misled. Clear mandatory country of origin labelling would significantly reduce the risk that consumers making a food purchasing decision would be misled, or in practice be unable to use their consumer power to support domestic producers if that is what they wish to do.
	Country of origin labelling already exists for beef, and I believe it should be extended to cover other fresh meat. There are more complex issues in the labelling of processed meat and dairy products, where the sourcing frequently varies. I acknowledge that these issues would need to be considered carefully in Committee. Modern labelling technology has improved considerably in recent years, and I am persuaded that it would now be easier for processed food manufacturers to comply with country of origin labelling requirements than it was in the past, but I acknowledge that processed food does present greater difficulties in labelling than fresh meat.
	This morning, I was pleased to attend the David Black memorial award breakfast in the House of Lords, celebrating the achievements of the British pig industry despite very difficult conditions in recent years, and particularly to honour the contribution to the industry of this year's award winner, Ian Campbell MBE. I was also pleased to receive a copy of a film entitled "An Inconvenient Trough", made by a group of pig farmers and launched this morning. It is an excellent follow-up to the campaign "Stand by Your Ham", which last summer featured Winnie the pig in a stall opposite Downing street, where she drew thousands of visitors, including many Members. This film draws attention to the conditions facing pig farmers, notably that 70 per cent. of the imports of pork and pork products into the United Kingdom are produced to animal welfare standards that would be unlawful in this country. It is in that context that we must look at country of origin labelling. I must emphasise that this is not in order to prevent consumers buying products from where they wish, but, rather, to ensure that they are making informed decisions and that they cannot be misled.
	Government can also do more. The pig industry has produced its own quality standard mark for pork, and for other pork products such as bacon and ham. The mark shows that the meat has been produced to higher animal welfare standards, yet 76 per cent. of bacon and 39 per cent. of pork served in Whitehall Departments is produced to the lower EU standards, not the higher standards of the quality standard mark.
	I make no secret of the fact that I wish all consumers would buy British meat all the time, but achieving that is a matter for consumers and is not the purpose of my Bill. I just want to see a fair deal for British farmers. I want to ensure that they are given the chance to compete fairly with overseas products, that the lower animal welfare standards often applied to imported production are clearly marked for consumers as well as the higher standards of domestic production, that farmers are able to engage the consumer in supporting the high standards of food safety, animal welfare and environmental care that lie at the heart of British farming and that they cannot be undermined by misleading labelling of competing products. A vital part of facilitating that shift in priorities will be to ensure that this country has far more rigorous and transparent food labelling. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Bacon, Keith Hill, Mr. Keith Simpson, Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. David Heath, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. David Ruffley, Angus Robertson, Mr. Roger Williams and Sir Nicholas Winterton.

Food Labelling

Mr. Richard Bacon accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for relevant information about food, including information about the country of origin, contents and standards of production of that food, to be made available to consumers by labelling, marking or in other ways; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 November, and to be printed [Bill 157].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[11th Allotted Day—Second Part]

Olympic Legacy

[Relevant documents: The Sixth Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2007-08, HC 104-1, London 2012 Games: the next lap, the Government response, Cm 7437, and the uncorrected transcript of evidence taken before the Committee on 7th October 2008, HC 1071-i, on London 2012 Games: Lessons from Beijing.]

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Jeremy Hunt: I beg to move,
	That this House congratulates the British team on its superb results in Beijing, which should provide an excellent platform for its performance in London 2012; notes with concern however the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Report of 23rd April 2008, which highlighted the inadequate preparations for an Olympic sporting legacy from London 2012; is disappointed with the Government's legacy action plan which is largely a restatement of existing commitments; notes that the London Olympic Games will be the biggest sporting event in the history of the UK; and calls upon the Government to ensure that the UK lives up to the promise made in July 2005 in Singapore that the London 2012 Olympic Games will be used to leave a lasting sporting legacy.
	The Opposition have been unstinting in our support for London 2012. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), when he was leader of the Conservative party, gave his personal assurance at the time of the bid that London 2012 would have the full support of a future Conservative Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), the shadow Olympics and Sports Minister, was in Singapore for the bid, stressing and underlining the cross-party nature of the support for the project.
	The Government may say today that by initiating this Opposition day debate on the Olympic legacy, we are somehow breaking the Olympic consensus: nothing could be further from the truth. It is because we are passionately determined to ensure that London 2012 is a huge success that we have a duty to speak up when we think that things are going wrong.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: May I bring to the hon. Gentleman's attention some of the points that we heard earlier in Prime Minister's Question Time? There was, frankly, very little support for borrowing. Would he concede that the Olympic programme is founded on a massive construction project, and that unless we make commitments of the kind that this Government have made to the construction companies, we will go belly-up and we will not have any Olympics full stop?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree completely with the hon. Lady that those construction projects need to go ahead, and within budget. The Opposition have totally supported the fact that some changes inevitably need to be made in a situation such as the financial crisis that we currently face, and I shall talk about those changes in a few minutes. My point is that when something goes wrong in a project of this scale, it is important to speak up. We did that over the appalling budget miscalculations that meant that the budget for the Olympics had to be virtually tripled, leading to hugely damaging effects on the national lottery good causes. We are speaking up now over the Olympic legacy, which is not only one of the most important elements of the 2012 project, but one of those most in danger of not being delivered.
	Our concern is not primarily about the economic legacy, and our motion is not about that. We recognise that the project will bring huge and vitally needed regeneration to five of the poorest boroughs in London, although there are concerns about the possible reduction in the number of houses being built and the threats hanging over the money being invested in upgrading the North London line. Our motion is about the sporting legacy, which divides into two distinct areas. The first is the so-called hard legacy, which is the one that will be left behind by the venues built for the Olympics. The second is the soft legacy, which is the increase in sporting participation that should happen in not only the Olympic sports—that increase is welcome—but all sports. That will provide a challenge, because, as the Government's own report acknowledges, participation in sport has decreased in a number of the host cities after they have held the Olympics.
	Ensuring that the reverse happens is a challenge that we must meet, because these Olympics will cost every household—every family—in the country £500. They will cost the equivalent of £7 million every day from today until the opening ceremony, and that cost is being borne by taxpayers throughout the country. Thus, it is only right, proper and fair that the benefits should also be felt throughout the country. With a sporting legacy, the 2012 games can be a huge success; without it, they will be a gross betrayal of the promises made by Britain both to the world and to its own people.
	The Government legacy action plan says that
	"it is right that there is no separately costed London 2012 Games legacy plan."
	Of course legacy projects need to be integrated into the main projects, but the danger of not having a separately costed plan is that when the going gets tough, they are the bit that gets cut. We are concerned about signs that that is exactly what is beginning to happen. At the time of the bid, huge play was made of the fact that the facilities constructed for volleyball, basketball and water polo would be temporary and relocatable, so that after the Olympics they could be taken down and moved to another part of the country, which could then benefit from the Olympic legacy. That will not happen in respect of volleyball, which will take place at Earls Court, or fencing, which will take place at the ExCeL centre, and there are signs that Sport England is backtracking in respect of some of the other sports.
	That has led the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport to say the following on page 37 of its sixth report of Session 2007-08:
	"We are concerned at signs of a creeping reduction in relocatable venues. Every decision not to construct a temporary relocatable venue reduces the scope for the nations and regions to share in the...legacy".
	There was also huge concern when the shooting was moved from Bisley to the Royal Artillery barracks at Woolwich, where what will be constructed will be entirely temporary, leaving no legacy at all. The Select Committee report stated that it is
	"highly regrettable that the site chosen for shooting events is not one which commands the support of any of the constituent bodies of British Shooting, and we believe that more should have been done to explore alternative sites".

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the site for the shooting in Woolwich, in my constituency. Will he please tell the House whether his party is in favour of moving shooting to another location and, if so, to which one?

Jeremy Hunt: My party is in favour of exactly what the Select Committee says: that, wherever possible, we should ensure that there is a permanent legacy. The current plans for shooting do not allow any legacy to be created, and we think it highly regrettable that more research was not done into making possible some kind of legacy for shooting from the Olympics.
	May I ask the Secretary of State about design? When venues are being built, it is important that the potential legacy tenants—the people who will use the venues after the Olympics have finished—have some input into the design. Can he explain why design decisions have been taken before legacy tenants have been confirmed? That makes legacy use more expensive and less attractive to potential tenants. I compare that with what happened during the 2002 Commonwealth games in Manchester, when Manchester city was confirmed as a legacy tenant right from the outset, which meant that there could be a smooth transition and that a legacy could be assured.
	This June, the Government finally published their legacy action plan—three years after winning the bid and following two warnings from the Select Committee that they needed to get a move on. If the plan had been even barely adequate, however, we would not be having this debate. However, the fact is that it contains simply a series of re-announcements and only one new idea. The Government re-announced the promise of five hours of sport per week. That is fine as an aspiration, but when unpicked it works out at £15 per school per week to increase the amount of sport from two to five hours a week for every pupil. They also re-announced the target of making 2 million people more active, which dates from March 2007, as well as the medals target, which dates back to the 2006 Budget. They also re-announced decisions in a Department for Transport plan to boost cycling and a Department of Health plan to encourage healthy eating by babies. We should not plan the 2012 legacy by cobbling together every single programme with vague links to sport and the Olympics. This is not about looking at what we are already doing, but about what we could do.
	One new idea has been proposed: free swimming for under-16s and over-60s. Of course we welcome anything that encourages swimming, especially because it comes top of the list of sports that people say they would be interested in taking up. However, local councils say that not nearly enough money has been put aside to finance the plan. I would like to mention a matter that I brought to the Secretary of State's attention during the last Culture, Media and Sport questions. He received a letter from the Labour leader of Stevenage council—in the Minister of State's constituency—telling him that the average cost for a district council of implementing the scheme for the over-60s alone would represent a 2 per cent. increase in council tax. Is this really the time—when families up and down the country are struggling—for the Department to fund its schemes by bludgeoning its councils into back-door rises in council tax?

Lyn Brown: I introduced free swimming to the London borough of Newham when I was head of its culture department. We found that it did not increase our overheads or costs, because it brought in people who had not swum there previously. It also had the knock-on effect of advertising and promoting the other services available in the leisure centre that otherwise would not have been seen by that client group. Furthermore, those people spent additional money on food, drink and other services available in the centre, which subsidised some of the fixed overheads of the swimming pool.

Jeremy Hunt: In that case, will the hon. Lady speak to the Labour leader of Stevenage council, who has a very different view about the cost of the scheme? Will she also condemn the decision announced by Newham council on 14 October to cancel its plans for a leisure pool as part of the Olympic legacy, which will come as a huge disappointment to its residents?
	Information that we have just received about the under-16s part of the scheme identifies the fact that the funding that the Government have put on the table accounts for less than half of the scheme's total likely cost. The Secretary of State calls it a challenge fund—the only challenge is for councils to decide whether to cut services or raise council tax to fund it. That is an example of the Government over-promising and under-delivering at its worst. Even Labour councils are up in arms over what is happening.

Andy Reed: I chaired the recent county sports partnership meeting in Leicestershire. We have asked all our local authorities to work together to ensure that we put together a Leicestershire-wide bid, rather than individual ones. The figures that came back varied enormously and had no basis—literally, they were almost made up. I fear that, in some circumstances, the hon. Gentleman's figures come from people just flying a little kite. Will he join me in expecting much more detailed work from local authorities, rather than the usual scare story that local authorities need more money?

Jeremy Hunt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's involvement in county sports partnerships, which are extremely positive initiatives. I got my information from a freedom of information request. We received responses from hundreds of councils about the expected costs.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman has again displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what we seek to achieve through the free swimming scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) said, it began in local government. Councils were doing this themselves using funds at a local level, from primary care trust and council funds. We have put in place a national fund to help an initiative that began in local government. The logic of the system now in place for local government means that councils can set their own priorities. Eighty councils have selected the sports participation indicator as a priority. This is entirely in keeping with the system of priority setting in local government, at local level. The hon. Gentleman seems repeatedly to fail to understand that point.

Jeremy Hunt: If it was a partnership with local councils, why was it spun to the media when the announcement was made as a promise that the Government would deliver free swimming for the over-60s and under-16s? That was the message in all the headlines.
	The best comment on the Government's legacy action plan came from Tim Lamb, the chief executive of the Central Council of Physical Recreation. In a statement issued this morning he said that, apart from the swimming proposals,
	"The rest of the proposals"—
	in the legacy action plan—
	"are little more than existing plans which have been re-badged...there has been a real poverty of ambition about the Government's thinking."

Don Foster: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his point about swimming, does he agree that although we would all support opportunities, if properly funded, to get those who can swim to do more of it, the plan seems to have forgotten about getting more people to learn to swim? Would not the money have been better targeted at more swimming teachers and ensuring that swimming pools are available at times when pupils can learn to swim, rather than filling them up with those who can swim already outside those times?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not think that any of the schemes can work in isolation. The coaching and teaching is very important. I completely accept that making something free can excite public interest. We do not criticise the principle of local councils deciding that they want to boost swimming participation by making it free; we criticise the fact that it was announced as a big Government initiative to make it free for the over-60s and under-16s, when in fact that tab is being picked up through the back door by council tax payers.

Andrew Pelling: Is not the fundamental point that this is a cobbling together of initiatives that would have existed already, at a national level? Only London government under the Conservative administration has recognised that if the legacy issues are not dealt with, we risk losing support for the whole Olympic project in London, particularly in south London where my constituents are becoming strongly opposed to the Olympics because there is no prospect of a legacy. For example, places such as Crystal Palace are not being invested in at all.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the first things that the new Mayor of London did was to set up a legacy board of advisers and ring-fence money from the London Development Agency to be used for creating an Olympic legacy, boosting participation in sports and increasing money for coaching. The Conservatives are interested in action, not words.

Lee Scott: Although encouraging people to swim is vital, a swimming pool in my neighbouring constituency of Ilford, South has just closed down for health and safety reasons. Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be beneficial for the Government to help replace that swimming pool to ensure a true legacy? It could also be used as an Olympic training facility.

Jeremy Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. People have also been concerned about the cloud of misinformation about the number of swimming pools open. The Government have released figures that included swimming pools at private clubs among those considered open to the public.

Patrick Cormack: I understand completely why my hon. Friend emphasises swimming and the sporting legacy, but he will know from his other responsibilities that many people are fearful that one of the legacies of the Olympic games, because of the diversion of resources, will be leaking cathedrals, crumbling churches and other cultural assets being put at risk. Will he briefly address that point?

Jeremy Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to an extremely important consequence of the appalling budget miscalculations that the Government made with regard to the Olympics, which meant that they had to dip into national lottery funds, with an appalling cost to lottery good causes. I agree with him. We do not want this to be a legacy just for the Olympics, and that is why the Opposition have a proposal to return the lottery to its original four pillars, which will restore that much-needed money to the arts, heritage and charities sectors, which are also extremely important when it comes to the overall legacy of 2012.

Nicholas Winterton: Can we concentrate on the positive? I had a lot to do with the 2002 Commonwealth games in Manchester. One of the outstanding successes in the legacy of those games was the velodrome in Manchester. I believe that the recent success of our cyclists in the Olympic games in Beijing was based on that legacy. I have two constituents who between them won five gold medals for cycling in the Paralympics. To my mind, the example set in the Olympic games can produce that legacy. Surely the Government should concentrate on allowing people to use the facilities that will be built in order to stage a grand and successful Olympics. Is that not the way to proceed, rather than expressing the negative attitudes that are coming from both sides of the House about what the Olympics in 2012 can achieve for the UK?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I entirely agree with him. The example set by people such as Bradley Wiggins, Chris Hoy and Rebecca Romero is very inspiring. I believe that since those successes, the sales of bicycles have doubled. My hon. Friend will also be interested to know that 73 per cent. of the funding for our top cyclists came not from the Government but from the national lottery. That is why the national lottery plays such an important role.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend has been very kind about the Select Committee, which, as I am sure he will agree, is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). Does my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) agree that it is not just crumbling churches that have suffered as a result of the lack of control over the Olympic budget? Grass-roots sporting organisations are having their funding taken away from them. The sporting legacy will not be delivered by the people watching the Olympics on TV, as most people will do. It can be delivered only by organisations such as those in my constituency—if they continue to receive lottery support for grass-roots sport, so that kids get involved in the first place.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since the Government came into power, 80 per cent. of the funding for grass-roots sport has come not from the Government but from the lottery. Ministers' consistent raids on lottery funds for their pet projects have meant that the amount of lottery money going into grass-roots sports has declined from £397 million in 1997 to £209 million. It has nearly halved, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	Let me draw my hon. Friend's attention to another responsibility of the Select Committee, which is tourism. There is virtually nothing in the report about the tourism legacy. It is true that the Government have never prioritised tourism, and it is worth reminding the Secretary of State that it is an £85 billion industry that employs 2 million people.
	Last year, we were promised a four-year marketing campaign that would welcome the world to Britain. What has happened? The VisitBritain budget has been cut by 18 per cent. over the next three years, and our tourism market share, which has gone down by 10 per cent. since the Government came to power, continues to decline. We are missing a golden opportunity to set the tourism industry right and to allow it to embrace the huge opportunity offered by the fact that the eyes of the world will be focused on this country and this city in 2012.

Jeremy Wright: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even more important that we have a good legacy for tourism? Those whom I represent in my part of Warwickshire are unlikely to receive a direct legacy from the sporting events and are unlikely to see a significant increase in grass-roots sports. They might see an increase in tourism from those who come to London and are then persuaded to leave London and to visit the rest of the country. If they do not see that legacy, it will be harder to persuade them to get fully behind the Olympic ideal, as we would all wish them to do.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the challenge of the Olympics, as far as tourism is concerned, is that in the year of the Olympics it is not necessarily the case that more visitors come to the country. Sometimes, people are put off because they think that everyone else is coming, and it will be difficult to get flights and hotels. In fact, in Beijing this year hotel bookings were significantly down compared with last year because of the Beijing Olympics. My hon. Friend is right, and that is why we have to ensure that we identify the opportunities offered to showcase the whole of Britain to the world, grasp the bull by the horns and do something to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. That is not happening.

Philip Dunne: Since my hon. Friend mentions the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, I am sure that in his wide-ranging and impressive speech he will be planning to cover the cultural legacy, which is an important feature of the Government's proposals. They are short of ideas. Does he agree that an outstanding idea from the Opposition, which I hope the Government will take away, would be to recognise the important contribution that this country has made to the Olympics by choosing a suitable site in the Olympic park to recognise the contribution of Dr. William Penny Brookes and the Wenlock Olympian Society to the origins of the modern Olympics?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution, and agree entirely that we need to do more to recognise the Wenlock Olympian Society. The cultural Olympiad must be an important part of what London offers the world in 2012.
	Let me return to what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said about the way in which the performance of our top athletes can inspire people to take up sports. It is not just sales of cycles that have doubled. Sales of swimwear at Tesco have doubled since the success of Rebecca Adlington. Athletes need financial support, so will the Secretary of State explain why his Department has virtually broken the promise made in 2006 to raise £100 million from commercial sources to support our top athletes? Is it not the case that when the Government made that commitment they totally failed to understand what they could and could not raise from sponsorship? Is it not also the case that they failed to do anything for two years when economic conditions were much more favourable, and that now that the economic tide has turned there is a risk that that money will not materialise?
	How different the Government's approach is from that of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, which is organising the games and last week signed up Cadbury as a tier 2 sponsor. The committee has to raise a lot more money, but it has already managed to raise two thirds of the money that it needs, four years ahead of schedule. Paul Deighton, the chief executive of LOCOG, said:
	"If ever a strategy of going early was borne out it's now."
	The Government, who had to raise only £100 million, sat on their hands. Three Culture Secretaries later, not a penny has been raised. Once again, they failed to fix the roof when the sun was shining.
	The Secretary of State knows the power of British sporting performance in inspiring grass-roots participation.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in giving way. I have listened patiently to him and I am afraid that his argument is a long way away from my understanding of the impact of the Olympics. I represent a constituency 200 miles away, near Liverpool, yet our local authority has applied for funding for the Olympics, and has received it. Our health authority is introducing a huge number of initiatives on the back of the Olympics programme. We are feeling the benefit, and we are miles away. We feel really excited about the programme. We do not get any of the big buildings, but we have seen the development of community centres, swimming pools and an integrated health plan to support health. I wanted the hon. Gentleman to know that, because it is my experience, and I would guess that it is not unique.

Jeremy Hunt: I want the Olympics to inspire every schoolchild in every school in Crosby. That is a vital part of our Olympic legacy. That is why we are having this debate. We are concerned that what the Government have published does not amount to anything substantive. It is because we are concerned that there will not be a substantive legacy for the schoolchildren in her constituency that we are having this debate.
	Let me tell the Secretary of State that the failure to understand the critical role of the national lottery is an essential factor in why it has been so difficult to secure an Olympic legacy. This January, the Government were forced to raid another £675 million from lottery money for good causes. That was described as a "cut too far"—not by us, but by Derek Mapp, the chairman of Sport England. He was promptly sacked, presumably for what he said, and that created turmoil in the very organisation charged with boosting mass participation in sport.
	The Government's amendment asks us to welcome the "reform" of Sport England, but will the Secretary of State confirm that no successor to Derek Mapp will be appointed until well into the new year? If so, that would mean that that critical organisation will be without a leader at one of the most important times in its history.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he would not break any cross-party consensus on the Olympics, but he has gone on to make a series of what I would call nit-picking points. Can he say, at that Dispatch Box, what he would have done differently on funding the Olympics?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, I can. We would have returned the lottery to its original four pillars, which would have meant much more money going into legacy. We supported the Olympic budget, but this debate is about the Olympic legacy. One way that we could secure much more money to create a sporting legacy is to return the lottery to its original four pillars.

Pete Wishart: In Scotland, we are set to lose up to £200 million of lottery spending, and that will have an impact on good causes and grass-roots sports in every constituency. We are preparing for the Commonwealth Games in 2014, so does the hon. Gentleman think that there is a case for us getting back some or all of that money to pay for our legacy in Glasgow?

Jeremy Hunt: I think that creating support for a sporting legacy is as important for the Commonwealth games as it is for the Olympics. Returning the lottery to its original four pillars could create an extra £400 million for grass-roots sport in the decade following 2012. That would mean that more money would go into sport in Scotland, Wales and every corner of the country.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem with how the budget is being implemented is that the Government are spending far too much on consulting, advising, mentoring, watching and auditing, and not enough on just delivering the facilities?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend makes a telling point, as I would expect. It is true that the amount of money spent purely on consultancy is huge—at more than £400 million, it has raised a lot of eyebrows. Many question marks have been raised about the amount spent on consultants for the Olympics project, and for many other projects that the Government have set up.
	The construction of venues is the responsibility of the Olympic Delivery Authority, and that is on track. The organisation of the games is the responsibility of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, and that too is on track. The legacy of the games is the Government's responsibility: it is a critical area, yet the Government are failing to deliver. One reason for that is that the legacy responsibility has fallen between the cracks, having been divided between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Government Olympic Executive and the Minister for the Olympics.
	It could be so different. We could start by returning the lottery to its four pillars, and we could have credible, achievable objectives for every child in every school in the country.

Angus MacNeil: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully, and I paid special attention to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). Is he saying that he would like Scotland's lottery money to be returned to Scotland, especially given that Scotland is building for the Commonwealth games and hoping to create its own legacy from them? Would he go further and increase funding for Scotland from other parts of the lottery, as is happening with London in respect of the Olympics?

Jeremy Hunt: The point about the national lottery is that it is played throughout the country, so its benefits need to be felt throughout the country. The Government have had to raid good causes because of their miscalculations over the Olympics, and that has meant that the lottery is not operating as it should. We want to return it to its original four pillars so that lottery players in Scotland can benefit from their contributions, just as lottery players throughout the country do.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman has just used a phrase that is incorrect. I heard him say that we should return the lottery to its "original four pillars", but the previous Conservative Government created it with five pillars, one of which was the millennium fund. Has he forgotten that?

Jeremy Hunt: No, but the Culture Secretary may not have noticed that we are a long way past 2000 now. As a result, it is possible to wind up the Millennium Commission. I am not sure that many people in this House would say that how the commission spent its money was an especially good example of how lottery funding can be spent. Both sides of the House bear responsibility for what happened with the dome.
	I shall conclude by saying that we need vision. Where is the plan to send Olympians and Paralympians to every school in the country to fire up children with the Olympic vision? Where is the curriculum material that will mean that the Olympics can be integrated into what children are taught? We had such material for the Commonwealth games in Manchester, but there is no sign of it for 2012.
	Where is the plan to link sports clubs better to their local schools, so that we can reduce the current high drop-off rates when people leave school and stop playing sport? Most importantly, where is the imagination and determination to make sure that we get a legacy in the constrained and difficult financial circumstances in which we find ourselves?
	When the Olympics have gone, we are unlikely to see them back in this country in our lifetime. Therefore, let us use them to inspire a lifetime of sport and sporting values, because we have only one chance.

Andy Burnham: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof :
	"applauds the British Olympic and Paralympic teams for their superb performance in Beijing which should provide an excellent platform for their performance in London 2012; recognises that the increase in public funding for elite programmes has helped contribute to this success; notes that a decade of sustained investment at every level of sport—school, community and elite—has laid the strongest possible foundations for this Olympic period; welcomes the recent School Sport Survey which shows that 90 per cent. of children are doing two hours of sport a week; further welcomes the reform of Sport England that will build a world-class sport development system; and endorses the Government's Legacy Action Plan, including measures that will make a reality of the promise made in Singapore in 2005 to make two million people more active by 2012."
	It is not something that I do often, but I shall begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) for calling this debate. Sport matters greatly to millions of people in this country, yet the occasions when their national Parliament focuses on it and debates it in detail are rare indeed.

Bob Spink: The Secretary of State paid tribute to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) for calling this debate, but does he nevertheless feel that this is a missed opportunity? We are playing politics with this important subject rather than working together to build a positive legacy for people. An example of what I mean is the proposal to build a bike track at Hadleigh in my constituency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should work together to build a legacy based on the wonderful achievements of our Olympians and Paralympians, and on the great achievements made by men and women in sport across our country?

Andy Burnham: I am glad that the full parliamentary strength of the UK Independence party is behind the Government's efforts to build a successful Olympics. Like the hon. Gentleman, I picked up a churlish note in the speech by the shadow Culture Secretary. That was disappointing, because although I congratulated him on calling this debate, I was not encouraged by the tone of his remarks.
	I was about to say that the next four years present us all, as Olympic hosts, with a unique opportunity. Indeed, it is a one-off opportunity as we will not again in our lifetimes get this chance to change permanently the place of sport in our society.

Andy Reed: I agree that today should be an opportunity to try to rebuild a consensus about the Olympics. I shall come to my criticisms of the legacy plan later, but I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) towards the end of his speech, as I was waiting for the bit when he would announce the Opposition's plans. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman's speech was heavy on analysis but very light on policy specifics?

Andy Burnham: That is a perfect summary. The hon. Gentleman's speech was a series of nit-picking points about the Government's proposals, but not once did we hear a substantive suggestion about what the Conservative party would do differently to alter the place of sport in this country.

Alistair Burt: The right hon. Gentleman and I have played football together a number of times in a very consensual manner for the parliamentary team, so perhaps I can start my intervention from that base. Does he accept—

Bob Spink: What about policy, Alistair?

Alistair Burt: Does the Culture Secretary accept that, because of the decline in spending on sport after the raids on the lottery, it is the role of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt)—

Bob Spink: You can do better than that, Alistair!

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey is absolutely right to point out that spending decline to the right hon. Gentleman, as we must make sure that the legacy is good and proper.

Bob Spink: Come on, Alistair, what about a bit of policy?

Alistair Burt: What will happen over the next few years—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have continued interventions from the Back Bench—

Bob Spink: Tell him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Andy Burnham: I fear I agree with the sedentary interventions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are funding an Olympic games that will be the biggest boost that sport in the UK has ever received. The Olympics will lift sport to a place in our national life that it has never occupied before.
	The shadow Culture Secretary's remarks were light on analysis. When the available lottery pot for Sport England is combined with the extra Exchequer investment available to Sport England in the current spending review period, Sport England will be operating with an increased budget for school and community sport during that period, rather than a diminished one.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend and I have a keen interest in one of the best sports in the world—rugby league. How will he ensure that rugby league benefits from the legacy and how will he ensure that Sport England takes seriously the importance of rugby league and moves away from the sports it always seems to support?

Andy Burnham: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who makes the case for rugby league, which is a sport important to his constituency and mine. I am sure that he will join me in wishing the England rugby league team success. We congratulate them on their winning start in the rugby league world cup at the weekend. We will see a benefit for rugby league. Under the leadership of Richard Lewis, the sport has made great strides recently in investing in its club structure. I am lucky that Leigh Centurions and Leigh Miners rugby clubs are two of the strongest amateur clubs in the country. Rugby league is agreeing a whole-sport plan with Sport England, which will give the league the wherewithal to develop the sport during the Olympic period, as others wish to do.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Andy Burnham: I shall give way to the shadow Culture Secretary and to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) but then I want to make progress.

Jeremy Hunt: The Culture Secretary has just said that total funding for grass-roots sports has increased, so can he explain why answers supplied by his Department to my parliamentary questions show that the amount of money going to sport from the lottery and from grant in aid is £135 million less than when his Government came to power?

Andy Burnham: I will supply the hon. Gentleman with the exact figures for the total spending over the three-year period, comparing the last spending review with the current one. He mentioned grant in aid, but I think he may have missed out the extra money given to school sport to fund the five-hour offer in schools. Much of that money will go into developing sport in the further education sector and school-club links. I will clarify the figures because it is an important point, but I am confident of my statistics.

Philip Davies: We have heard how people were inspired by watching British Olympic success in Beijing. They watched those games on television and the vast majority of people in the UK will watch the London 2012 games on television, so can the Secretary of State explain why there will be such a big increase in sporting legacy after a London Olympics compared to the Beijing games? The only difference is that organisations such as the lottery will have less money to distribute to sport.

Andy Burnham: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not fabled for his imagination, but he should try to think of the possibility of an Olympic team training on his doorstep, at a local training camp. Can he not imagine what that will do to inspire— [ Interruption. ] I am sure that national teams will train in west Yorkshire. He should think about how positive that will be and not be so cynical. His constituents under the age of 25 will not be anywhere near as cynical as he is about the Olympic games.

Nick Hurd: rose—

Andy Burnham: I will take one more intervention and then—

Nicholas Winterton: Two?

Andy Burnham: And the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make progress.

Nick Hurd: The Secretary of State talks rightly about increased investment in sport in schools, but the uncomfortable fact is that Britain has the highest post-school drop-out rate for participation in sport. We have heard about the cut in funding for grass-roots sports, so what are the Government doing to plug the gap between schools and the 125,000 sports clubs across the UK? Most of those clubs are voluntary organisations and we all know from our constituencies that they have great potential to keep our young people fit, active and engaged.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which relates to a large part of the substance of what I want to say. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics has just reminded me that part of the funding package I was outlining to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey includes a guarantee of three hours of sport for 16 to 19-year-olds. It is an important aspect and I shall address it during my remarks, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) raised it.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Andy Burnham: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) but then I shall have to make progress.

Nicholas Winterton: I want to be positive because I view the 2012 games with huge optimism. We have referred to the Commonwealth games in 2002. May I ask the Secretary of State two questions? First, what conversations and discussions has he had with those who were involved in the Commonwealth games about the legacy of the games? In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the velodrome and my constituents, Sarah and Barney, who won five gold medals at the Paralympics. They did wonderfully well. Sarah won gold—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to content himself with one question. Interventions are getting longer and longer and many people want to participate in the debate, so the Secretary of State should respond—

Nicholas Winterton: The second question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Andy Burnham: I will take the question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and then I will make progress.
	The hon. Member for Macclesfield made an excellent point. Experience in Manchester directly informs how the London games are being brought forward, but the same cynical points that his Back-Bench colleague made about the Olympic games were made about Manchester. People said that we were building white elephant facilities that would have no legacy. The gold medals for cycling in Beijing were made in Manchester from the investment in the velodrome and all the associated infrastructure for British cycling. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to get these things right, but he makes the point very well indeed. I speak regularly with Sir Howard Bernstein, Richard Leese and others who were pivotally involved in the decisions about the Manchester Commonwealth games. We got it right then and we will get it right in London 2012.
	I hope that we can use today's debate to agree across the House that the Olympic period should be used to raise the place and prominence of sport in national life and debate, and that by doing so, we will make Britain a more active and world-leading sporting nation. It is precisely because of the scale of our ambition on that point, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics has reminded us many times, that we were successful in Singapore in winning the games for Britain. Today, I shall update the House on our progress in delivering a permanent sporting legacy. However, although I shall focus on sport, it is important to remind the Olympic cynics that our legacy goes much wider—tourism, skills, culture and regeneration.

John Redwood: Given that there is now a lot of unused capacity in building and construction, can we look forward to a fall in the advertised prices of facilities that are not yet under contract? That will relieve some of the pressure on the sporting legacy budget.

Andy Burnham: We can be assured that in the Olympic Delivery Authority we have a team of professionals who are managing the projects with skill and precision. They have already been commended for the tremendous progress they have made so far, and the right hon. Gentleman can be assured that they are taking every step necessary to secure the best value for the public money involved.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Andy Burnham: In a moment. I want to make some progress and go through the four key elements in our Olympic sporting legacy.
	First, our over-arching and ambitious goal is to have 2 million more people active by 2012. Secondly, every young person in England should have the opportunity to participate in five hours of sport in and out of school. Thirdly, we shall create a world-class community sport system and an improved club structure through a refocusing of Sport England and an enhanced role for our national governing bodies. Finally, we shall have an enhanced system for funding elite sport through the creation of a mixed economy of three funding streams—lottery, Exchequer and private sources. That will be the permanent legacy from our Olympic games. Taken together, those measures represent a coherent sports policy with investment at every level. Success at elite level will drive more participation at the grass roots, and improved facilities and coaching at the grass roots will keep young people active in sport and expand our talent pool.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: rose—

Pete Wishart: rose—

Andy Burnham: I will give way, but then I really must make progress.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He took an intervention from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about consultants, and I want to return to that point. Allegedly, £400 million has been spent on consultants, but does the Secretary of State not agree that we need to employ consultants to secure the very best contracts and the best value for people? Moreover, what is the point of securing a contract if one does not put in place a structure to monitor compliance with that contract? I happen to think that the spending was a good investment, and I hope that the Secretary of State does, too.

Andy Burnham: We should not be at all shy of saying that we will make use of the best expertise and professionals to ensure that we get the best possible value. These are complex projects; they need to be managed properly. At times, that will involve bringing in the best in the business to make sure that we get the best possible value. We should not be at all coy on that point.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. He mentioned the lottery. In Scotland, we are set to lose £150 million for good causes involved in grass-roots sports at the very time we are trying to create a legacy from the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. Does he agree with all parties in the Scottish Parliament—and with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who agrees with this position—that the money should be returned, so that we can ensure a legacy from Glasgow 2014?

Andy Burnham: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will continue to have incredibly close dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to make sure that Glasgow 2014 is as successful as London 2012 and Manchester 2002. That is what we want. I give him a commitment that I will maintain that dialogue, but I must remind him that the Olympic games is a British project, for which Great Britain bid, and it will benefit all of Great Britain. Indeed, the football will take place in Scotland. Surprisingly, his party took advantage of the Beijing games to call for a Scottish Olympic team. I do not think that that was in line with the mood of the country at the time. It wants a British team to have a successful games in the capital city. However, we will make sure that the Commonwealth games in Glasgow are a success, too.

Tom Brake: I want to draw the Secretary of State's attention to concerns that local authorities are expressing about their ability to brand programmes that they are already running. I understand that my local authority has just had it confirmed that it can use the term, "Team Sutton", but concerns remain about the fact that it cannot use the term "London 2012", which will mean that the programmes remain relatively low-profile.

Andy Burnham: Of course, we have to ensure that the money that we need to raise privately to fund the Olympics and the building of the Olympic infrastructure is not compromised, and that there is not an overcrowded field in which everybody seeks to use the association with the Olympics. Local authorities can be associated with the Olympics through the "Inspire" brand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics has been so creative in bringing forward. I hope that that will give local authorities the marketing that they need.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Harry Cohen: rose—

Andy Burnham: I must make progress, but I will give way later. Before we address the elements of the legacy, it is important to reflect on the changes and the progress that we have made in the past 10 years. I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating the British Olympic and Paralympic teams in Beijing on their tremendous success. Britain won an incredible 102 medals in the Paralympics and 47 in the Olympics; it was Britain's best medal haul in more than a century. Every single one of those medals was won by the hard work of athletes, with support from their coaches, who are often forgotten, and sacrifices from their families. Again, that is too often forgotten when we celebrate the achievements of our fine athletes.
	Public funding helped, and it is important to remember that Olympic success is built not just on funding at elite level, but on a decade of investment at every level of sport—school, community and elite. That has not always been the case, and for all the lectures that we heard this afternoon from the Opposition, let us remind ourselves of where sport was back in 1996. At Atlanta in 1996, Britain won one gold medal and was 36th in the medals table. It was our worst Olympic performance ever. That was not just bad luck; it is what we get when we neglect and under-invest in this country's sporting infrastructure at every level over a long period. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) shakes his head, but I saw first-hand—

Hugh Robertson: rose—

Andy Burnham: I will not give way just now, because I am making an important point.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman needs to listen to this point. I saw it —[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have interventions from a sedentary position. Interventions must be made in the proper way, otherwise the debate is totally disrupted.

Andy Burnham: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I saw it with my own eyes: after-school competitive sport was simply allowed to crumble away, and it was not the fault of loony left councils. Competitive sport has always been a bedrock of community life in areas such as St. Helens, where I went to school. That change was the result of failure to respond to one of the key elements of the teachers' dispute of the mid-1980s. We saw the collapse of an informal, ad hoc, voluntary system of providing after-school sport, and no alternative was put in its place, which deprived millions of children of a quality introduction to sport during their school years.  [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent wants to dispute that record of events, he should stand up now and do so.

Hugh Robertson: I will. First, the Secretary of State just criticised us for making so-called party political points. Looking at the Olympic medal tables in the 1980s and early 1990s, we see that we came ninth, 11th, 12th and 13th in those years; he knows that perfectly well. He, of course, has picked the one year in the last 30-year cycle to suit his argument, which was a rather silly party political point. He also knows that it was overwhelmingly left-wing Labour councils that pursued an anti-competitive-sport agenda that did huge damage to the competitive sport system in this country.

Andy Burnham: I just do not accept that that is correct at all. If the hon. Gentleman looks back, he will see that the effect of the teachers' dispute was that after-school sport ended. I do not believe that that was the result of political ideology, as the Conservatives always claim. It was the effect of the teachers' dispute, and experts in the field will back me up on that. Not only were there fewer opportunities for young people to play sport, but there were fewer places where they could do so. Playing fields were sold off in their thousands. It was an era when this country's sporting fabric, in schools and at community level, went into serious decline.

Jeremy Hunt: rose—

Andy Burnham: If the hon. Gentleman wants to dispute that record of events, I will give way to him.

Jeremy Hunt: No record was taken of the number of playing fields sold before 2000, and since 2001 well over 50 playing fields have been sold every single year. In 1999, the Government abolished compulsory competitive sports for the over-14s. At the time, the Secretary of State was special adviser to the then Secretary of State. Was that the right decision or the wrong decision?

Andy Burnham: On the point about playing fields, tests were put in place by the new Government in 1997 to ensure that there was no net loss of sporting amenities. Every application since then has been checked by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, or by Sport England, to ensure that if a playing field was disposed of, the proceeds were reinvested so that the community was provided with equivalent or better sports provision. That is a much better system than the one that was left to us by the hon. Gentleman's party in 1996. Is he defending that record? I do not think that he is.

Patrick Cormack: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may introduce a note of harmony if I remind the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) that you and I remember the 1948 Olympics. What we really want as the major sporting legacy of the 2012 Olympics is a love of sport for its own sake, without regard for filthy lucre. We want sportsmen and women who can inspire young people at school, as we and our fellows were inspired all those years ago. That is what we want.

Andy Burnham: I agree wholeheartedly. We need to encourage a sense of the simple joy of sport among young people. A quality introduction—coaching and competition—for all young people will encourage them to find a joy in sport for life.

Harry Cohen: rose—

Paul Truswell: rose—

Andy Burnham: I will give way to my hon. Friends in a moment.
	We are providing just such an introduction. The steps taken to put school sport back on its feet have been mentioned; in the past decade, £4 billion has been invested in school, community and elite sport, and in the past five years more than £1.5 billion has gone to physical education and school sport alone. We are seeing the results.
	Let us look at the headline statistics from the school sport survey, published just two weeks ago. Some 90 per cent. of pupils now participate in at least two hours a week of high-quality PE and sport; only a quarter of pupils did so in 2002. Competitive sport is on the increase. Some 66 per cent. of pupils are involved in intra-school competitive activities, which is up from 58 per cent. last year. Some 41 per cent. of pupils are involved in inter-school competition—up from 35 per cent. last year. On average, each school offers 17.5 sports —up from 14.5 in 2003-04.
	To answer the previous point about school-club links, I should say that 32 per cent. of pupils participated in a local club linked to their school, up from 19 per cent. in 2004. Forget the exchanges that we have had—those are the facts. School sport is back on its feet, and I am incredibly proud of those statistics.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our paltry number of Olympic medals in the years that he has not mentioned today came on the back of investment in private facilities? Sport was then very unegalitarian, but this Government have extended opportunity to all. My school grounds are now safe for my children to play in; they have not been sold for development. In addition, my teachers are well paid as a result of the Government and they are prepared to do what the Conservative party denied them the opportunity to do when it was in government.

Andy Burnham: I agree entirely with that assessment. I should say in praise of John Major that he recognised the importance of sport and—belatedly—tried to put measures in place to benefit it. It is important that that should be recognised, and I do recognise it. The difficulty for Conservative Members is that that came right at the end of their 18 years in government and they did not leave sufficient time for any appreciable impact to be felt. John Major came with the right instincts and good ideas, but they were not made into reality. It was left to this Government to pick up the threads and turn the situation around. The statistics tell us that the situation in schools has been turned around.

Nick Raynsford: I strongly endorse the approach that my right hon. Friend has taken in his speech, and the emphasis on the wide legacy impact and, in particular, the inspirational consequences of the Olympics for our children. I hope that this year he will be able to come to Woolwich, where in the past two years we have held sportathons on the site targeted for the Olympic shooting event; if he does, he will see the huge inspirational effect on children of knowing that the Olympics will be held in their area. Does that not make a mockery of the facile and incorrect Opposition claim that the shooting at Woolwich will have no legacy? Is that not an indication of the narrowness and foolishness of their approach?

Andy Burnham: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. I celebrate what has happened in his local authority area. One thing that I did not read out was that 99 per cent. of schools now have annual sports days, which bring inspiration and a joy in sport to all the young people who participate.
	At this point, I should mention the UK school games, which my right hon. Friends the Minister for the Olympics and the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) were instrumental in bringing forward. Some 1,500 young people participated, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), in the summer. It was a fantastic event. The young people were so engrossed in what they were doing; they were really experiencing the thrill of competition and of being part of a major event. The school sports system is completely reinvigorated, and we should be thoroughly proud of it.

Harry Cohen: I want to raise the issue of football. There was disappointment that there was no Great Britain team at the Beijing games and there will be dismay if there is not a Great Britain men's and women's football team at the 2012 Olympics. Earlier, I tried to intervene on my right hon. Friend when he said that he was having talks with the various home countries' football boards. Would he be prepared to take legislative action, if necessary, so that he could even pick the manager to pick the teams so that we had representatives in those tournaments?

Andy Burnham: The issue is close to my heart, although I am not sure whether I would go as far as my hon. Friend is enticing me to go. However, let me say this. I come from the north-west of this country; we are close to Northern Ireland and Wales and have strong links to Scotland. I feel strongly British, and it would be a crying shame if our national sport was not represented at London 2012 by a British team. The Olympics is an occasion for people of all political persuasions to put narrow, petty political point scoring behind them and think about the national celebration, letting people everywhere enjoy a moment when Britain comes together and puts its best face forward to the world.
	I say to my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister and I have raised such issues with FIFA. The British Olympic Association is keen to field a British team at London 2012. If young people, wherever they come from, participate in that team, no measures should be taken against them for having played in a British team at London 2012, their home Olympics.

Angus MacNeil: I preface my remarks by echoing the words of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) in wishing the English rugby league team all the best at the rugby league world cup. I hope that that is a sign of things to come, because I believe that England can stand on its own two feet internationally and make the best of it.
	I should like to take the Minister back to the raid on Scotland's lottery money. Will he at least concede that although people in Scotland welcome and are looking forward to the London Olympics, losing Scottish money that should be going into Scottish sport, life and development leaves a slightly bitter taste in the mouth?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the House again that the interventions have been very long. The clock is ticking, and an awful lot of people are seeking to catch my eye. They are going to be very disappointed. Some who are making long interventions are hoping to catch my eye later; that is rather counter-productive.

Andy Burnham: Taking the narrow view is not in the right spirit. We are talking about the country's, not just London's, Olympic games—the British Olympic games. Scottish athletes will be part of those games, funded through UK Sport. We would all do well to listen to how Chris Hoy put it in the summer when he was celebrating his and his team's success and did not want petty divisions to be brought in. I have said to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that we will ensure that there is a successful Commonwealth games in Glasgow, and we will all make an effort so that that happens. I hope that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) will not constantly seek to undermine the London Olympics, which will benefit us all.

Paul Truswell: rose—

Andy Burnham: This must be the last intervention; then I want to make progress.

Paul Truswell: In the past, my right hon. Friend has acknowledged that one of the most important ways of engaging young people of all abilities and skills in any sport is to give them access to good-quality coaching. Before he moves on, will he elucidate what more is being done to ensure that schools, community sports clubs, local authorities and other organisations will be able to provide more inspirational and motivating coaching, which is such a crucial catalyst for promoting participation?

Andy Burnham: I will now come to the detail of that crucial point; I shall explicitly respond to my hon. Friend's point in the next few moments.
	I have described the solid foundations on which we are building during this Olympic period. We want a generation of young people for whom sport at school and in the community has been a bigger part of life. They will then be the legacy of the Olympic games and remain active for their entire lives. We are planning to increase investment at every level so that that can become a reality.
	Our overarching goal is to make 2 million more people active, and we are clear about how we will do that. One million people will become active through the formal sports club system and 1 million more through the promotion of physical activity. The Government will make an announcement on the delivery of physical activity in due course. However, we have already taken major steps in this regard, such as our record £100 million investment in 11 cycling demonstration towns, using local creativity and innovation to create a good environment for cycling and cyclists.
	We have demonstrated our commitment to a lasting Olympic legacy with our £140 million free swimming package. More than 80 per cent. of councils in England have already confirmed that they will offer free swimming to all those aged over 60 from next April, and our ambition is to help more councils to go even further. I am proud of my own local council, which will from next April provide universal free swimming for all. Let me repeat to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, who seems not to have understood, that that initiative began in local government and is largely being funded at local level by the primary care trust and the council. This is a partnership; it is about matching funds that are available nationally with funds that councils and PCTs want to put into getting their populations more active. It is not in any way frivolous; it is about permanently increasing levels of physical activity. If we do not do that, we will face serious health consequences in the long term. I hope that he will work with us, and ask his colleagues in local government to do so, to ensure that this initiative succeeds and that we continue to take it forward in that spirit. Swimming remains one of the most popular activities for adults, with one in 10 men and nearly one in five women swimming at least once a month. We think that we can go further and build on that participation.
	We promised to increase young people's participation in sport, and we have set a new goal—the chance to take part in five hours of sport a week. This takes me into the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). All schools are now covered by one of England's 450 school sports partnerships. We have more than 3,200 school sports co-ordinators. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had the good fortune to meet any of his local school sports co-ordinators, but they are an incredible group of people who are inspired and enthused, and do so much good work to get young people active and encourage an interest in sport. We also have a network of 225 competition managers. That is an infrastructure that can deliver after-school sport. I pointed out to the shadow Minister the former lack of such an infrastructure.
	The issue is not only time, but the quality of the experience. High-quality coaching is the way to build confidence in young people and encourage them to stay active for life. If they are not given basic coaching in sports such as tennis and cricket at an early age, they will not develop the confidence that enables them to play with confidence at school and then go on to a club environment. Young people find it daunting to go to a sports club for the first time. It is particularly difficult for young girls, because the environment is not always as welcoming as it could be. If young people have confidence in their own sporting ability and understand the technique in the sport that they wish to pursue, there is a chance of ensuring that they stay active for life. That is a crucial part of the plans that we are taking forward.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the increase to five hours, but what goes with good coaching is good facilities. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that we have a sporting village that replicates what he has in Leigh? We lack a running track and the other sporting facilities that can bring on future Olympians. That is the legacy that we want in Chorley: what can he do to help us to get it?

Andy Burnham: We must carry on investing in the bread-and-butter facilities up and down the country. Councils provide the majority of sports facilities; we can do more to help them to bring facilities up to an acceptable standard. They need to provide a high-quality environment, particularly for young girls, who may not be willing to put up with the old shipping containers with changing rooms and showers and toilets that do not work. If people are going to play sport they need working toilets and showers and a warm environment to get changed in. Those are basic requirements, and we need to carry on working on that.
	Conservative Members keep referring to the raid on the lottery. They cannot have noticed that under my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics and her predecessor efforts were made through the New Opportunities Fund to invest significantly in the sporting infrastructure in schools, predominantly in floodlit astroturf pitches, of which there are several in my constituency. Those facilities are now used by the community during evenings and weekends. A lot has been done to put in place the infrastructure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley wishes to see, but I am sure that he will push me in going further and I am happy to talk to him about that.
	Let me move on to another key point of our legacy. We want a more focused community sports system. Through Sport England, we developed a bold new strategy that will help to realise that ambition. Sport England will act more strategically as a commissioner of sports development so that we can work with governing bodies to expand participation and the talent pool. In return for public money and freedom comes greater responsibility. I expect governing bodies for sport to reach young people from all walks of life, and they will be expected to operate to the highest standards of internal governance. Women's sports, girls' sports and disability sports will not be optional extras, but a vital part of what governing bodies are expected to do. If any sport does not wish to accept that challenge, funding will be switched to those that do.
	We want a new system of funding for elite sport at an enhanced and more ambitious level. Public investment in elite sport will reach unprecedented levels in the run-up to the London games, with more than £300 million being put in, compared with £265 million for Beijing. That is the direct result of the decision by the Prime Minister, then Chancellor, in March 2006 to commit extra Exchequer funding to elite sport. In the run-up to the London games, we are taking that funding model further. Building on lottery-only funding at the Sydney games and lottery and tax funding at the Beijing games, we are putting in place for London a new mixed funding model to fund elite sport of lottery, Exchequer and business funding. That is the model that has served the arts and culture sector so well, and that is what we are seeking to create in elite sport.
	My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will soon bring forward our plans for medal hopes, and there will be a high-profile fundraising drive reaching all parts of the country. We want all parties in this House to lend their shoulders to ensuring that the country gets behind the British team in the run-up to London 2012. These are well-worked-out plans that have been thought through in detail. It is true that the current economic conditions make raising £100 million from the private sector more challenging, but the performance of the British team in Beijing has given us the best possible platform to build from.

Paul Truswell: My right hon. Friend was right to trumpet the success of specialist sports colleges, of which I have two in my constituency—St. Mary's and Priesthorpe. However, to amplify the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley, their only misgiving about the process is the lack of capital to invest in facilities. Will my right hon. Friend speak to colleagues in other Departments to ensure that capital streams such as Building Schools for the Future are more closely aligned with the Government's sporting priorities?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is having precisely those discussions with his colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Schools can look forward to enhanced sports facilities through the BSF programme, which is an incredible opportunity. When the Conservatives call for the lottery to be returned to its original state, they miss the point that lottery money could not be spent in schools when the lottery was created. Changes such as the New Opportunities Fund made it possible to spend lottery money in schools, creating brand new sports facilities. As we understood it when we fought the general election in 1997, the public wanted national lottery money to be spent on the health service to supplement health projects and on improving schools. That money can still be spent in that way, because there is more flexibility. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is more to be done in giving money to specialist sports colleges, although I think that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families recently announced some discrete funding for specialist sports colleges. Certainly, one in my constituency benefited from a capital grant to drain its sports pitches. More funding is being put in, and I encourage him to find out more about it.

Andy Reed: I apologise for intervening. I will go into detail about the £100 million a little later, but I just wanted to speak while the Secretary of State is at the Dispatch Box. He has great confidence that this additional money will be raised; could he explain in detail what rights UK Sport has to sell—never mind the problems in the financial markets at the moment—on behalf of athletes to raise money? As he knows, I do not share his confidence. Can he guarantee that the UK Sport board will be in a position by its December meeting to put forward a funding package for the remaining four years?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right about the deadline. There is a need to make four-year allocations to sport by December to allow for planning. He will know that we have already made provisional allocations—I think that he raised that point during oral questions—and we want to enable governing bodies to have firm allocations in December. We are engaged in those discussions right now.
	On top of the allocations that we are able to make, we will have a fundraising drive. There is a plethora of schemes out there in which people are saying, "Come and support local heroes"—everyone wants a piece of Team GB. In the "medal hopes" scheme, we are creating the only official route by which businesses at every level—local, regional and national—can come behind the British team and supplement the unprecedented amounts of public money that are going into elite sport.
	It is important to remember that some Opposition Members and some of those in the other place have claimed that there is a Government black hole. That is not the case. When the Chancellor set up the system, he said that the public would put in an unprecedented amount of money, but we want to build on that further and bring in private revenue. That is exactly what we are planning to do. My hon. Friend will see soon a number of discrete schemes under "medal hopes", which are exactly the kind of things that will be offered in the marketplace. I would ask him to exhibit a little bit more patience, but he is right—we will introduce these plans shortly. There will be a package that ensures that we do right by our sportsmen and women. We will build on Beijing, and go on to have our most successful performance ever at the London games.
	In conclusion, some might think that our plans for legacy for 2012 sound optimistic, but I remind the House that pre-Beijing, there were those who were cynical about our chances. I quote from the Select Committee's report:
	"Performance at recent Olympic Games suggests that the aspiration towards eighth place at Beijing in 2008 is ambitious; the aspiration towards fourth place in London 2012 might appear even rash."
	I do not wish to rile the distinguished and esteemed Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, but before he goes to the bookies at the weekend, he might want to take some advice about his sporting predictions—from these Benches perhaps. We have an in-house expert who is very good at making high-profile and risky wagers. I hope that the Chairman of the Committee will see that we have a track record in delivering what we say we will deliver.

John Whittingdale: May I just say to the Secretary of State—and I suspect that I speak on behalf of all members of the Committee—that we were never happier to have been proved wrong?

Andy Burnham: That is an incredibly gracious remark. But this is not about point scoring. We were all surprised and delighted by the over-performance of the British team. As I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), we want them to go further in 2012, and that will be part of the legacy, too. If they do, young people will be inspired by the most successful ever British team, at our home Olympics. Think of the benefit that that will deliver to grass-roots sport in this country. It will be enormous. It will be time for the cynics to be quiet and let the sports-loving community of this country enjoy its moment—to enjoy a great time for this country, where people flood to take part in sport at a local level.
	The legacy will be a whole generation of young people receiving more and better sporting opportunities in school and in the community. There will be more opportunities for families to take part in sport together through our free swimming scheme, and opportunities for older people to be more regularly active. It will build a sound system for funding elite sport in the long term. That is the best sporting legacy that the London Olympics can deliver. We will deliver by 2012. I urge Members to support the Government amendment to the motion.

Don Foster: I begin where the Secretary of State ended, by placing on record our congratulations on the phenomenal success of our Olympic and Paralympic athletes in Beijing. I suspect that those results have done more to ensure a lasting Olympic legacy than today's debate will achieve. Nevertheless, it is an important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) on securing it.
	I want to make it clear from the outset, as the hon. Gentleman did, that my party fully supported the Olympic bid, and we fully support and fully back all the work being done to ensure that we have the best ever games in London in 2012. That does not mean that we do not have some concerns. We share some of the disappointments expressed. We believe that there have been some missed opportunities, and we believe that steps that could be taken are not being taken. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) announced in advance of his speech that he has a number of criticisms of the Olympic legacy plan, and so do we, but that in no way should be seen as undermining our support for the London Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012.
	Although the sporting legacy has been the main topic of debate and is the main issue covered in the motion, I was delighted that reference was made to other areas in which we hope to achieve a legacy. Reference has been made to the importance of ensuring a legacy for tourism—the fifth most important area of the British economy, and it is in difficulty. Since 1997, when the figures were roughly in balance, Britons have spent about £19 billion more abroad than people from overseas have spent in this country. We urgently need to do more to support our tourism industry to ensure that it has a legacy as a result of the 2012 games.
	I therefore find it appalling that the Government are cutting the budget for VisitBritain. When that point was raised by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, the Minister for the Olympics said, from a sedentary position, "Where's the money going to come from?" I am sure that she would recognise that a bit of additional investment—or not cutting the planned investment—in VisitBritain, so that it can market this country abroad in the run-up to 2012 will bring huge financial rewards, not only to the tourism industry but to the Exchequer. It would be a very good investment.
	The other area that has not been touched on much, although it is an important part of the promised legacy, is the legacy for businesses in all parts of the country. It is worrying to look at what has happened in the awarding of Olympic contracts to date. We were told that every part of the country would benefit, but London and the south-east, which have 30 per cent. of all UK businesses, have so far won 69 per cent. of the 700 Olympic contracts that have been awarded. The north-east, which has 10 per cent. of all businesses, has won only 1 per cent. of the contracts. The Secretary of State, who comes from the north-west, ought to be concerned that his area of the country has 7 per cent. of all businesses, but has so far won only 2 per cent. of the Olympic contracts. We have to give far more support in uplifting skills and providing training to ensure that businesses in all parts of the country can compete successfully for the remaining Olympic contracts.
	I note with interest, however, that there are good ways of making money, even out of debates on the Olympic legacy. Any Member who wishes to pay £90 will be able to go, on 3 November, to a discussion on the Olympic legacy. Perhaps we might charge those coming to this debate to raise some of the money that the Secretary of State needs.
	I want to turn, as the motion rightly does, to the issue of the sporting legacy.

Tom Brake: Before my hon. Friend moves from the subject of other legacies, does he agree that it would be regrettable if the transport legacy—specifically, the North London line—was lost? It is key to the games and to providing superior transport facilities in future.

Don Foster: My hon. Friend is right. As a result of the Olympics coming to London, there will be significant, much-needed improvement in transport in the London area. The North London line is important, which is why, should financial difficulties continue, we will work with the Government to find ways of solving problems so that the contracts can go ahead. I know that various options are being explored, and we will work with the Government to ensure the best deal not only for the taxpayer but so that we get the much-needed infrastructure improvements in transport from building the Olympic park.
	I am the first to admit that there have been some phenomenal improvements recently, and I pay tribute to the Government for their work. The Secretary of State listed several improvements, with statistics. I hope that he will not, therefore, think it churlish of me to point out that further improvements could be made and that, if the Government effected them, we would get a better sporting legacy from 2012.
	Our elite athletes constitute one matter of concern. That wonderful performance in Beijing was backed up with a funding package of £265 million. The Government announced that we are considering a much bigger funding package—£600 million—for London 2012, and I welcome that. However, the problem remains of the £100 million shortfall. We know that perhaps £21 million will be found because of the new contract with Camelot about a third licence for the national lottery. However, that still means that £79 million must be found. Although the hon. Member for South-West Surrey did not mention it in his speech, he has said elsewhere that the Conservative party believes that the money should come from the Contingencies Fund. I am not convinced that that is the right way forward, but there is a proposal that the Secretary of State might seriously consider.
	The Secretary of State knows that we were critical of the second tranche of cuts from the national lottery to pay for the Olympic infrastructure and that we proposed, some four years ago—I am delighted that we now have Conservative support—a move to a gross profits tax approach for national lottery taxation. That approach is used in most other forms of gambling and betting. As he knows, the figures show that, if we did that, there would be more money not only for lottery good causes but for the Exchequer. I therefore hope that he will consider such increased Exchequer funding as a possible source for the £79 million that UK Sport is missing, and make the much-needed announcement in December.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the legacy a lot. According to the House of Commons Library, funding before the Beijing Olympic games was £265 million, with £90 million for podium funding. I believe that the Secretary of State said that that would increase to £325 million in the four years before 2012. However, I revert to the point that Scotland will lose between £150 million and £200 million through the London Olympics. Although we all support the London Olympics, losing money from Scotland during a credit crunch sticks in the craw. Do the Liberal Democrats support the SNP in wanting to keep Scotland's money in Scotland?

Don Foster: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is surprised that I mentioned the legacy a lot, given that that is the title of the debate. None the less, I understand his concerns and those of colleagues in Scotland. I urge him to get behind the Liberal Democrat proposal for a gross profits tax on the national lottery. If he supported that, and the Government were persuaded to adopt it in the pre-Budget report, which will be made soon, Scottish good causes would receive significant additional funds.
	It is worrying that some of our elite athletes are so concerned that they plan to sell computer-generated images of themselves for £1,000 a year. The creators of the website, gold medal-winning sailors Sarah Webb and Sarah Ayton, have announced that they are £30,000 in debt after Beijing. We must address that genuine problem quickly. UK Sport needs a clear announcement as soon as possible.
	Not only the elite legacy is important, so let me deal with other aspects of sporting legacy. It is critical to provide more support for community sports organisations and school sport. The Conservatives offered the solution of reverting to the four—five if we count the millennium fund—pillars that were originally designed for the national lottery. That is superficially attractive, and I am sure that it will get much good news coverage, but I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Surrey is prepared to say how Conservatives intend tackling the resulting black hole in aspects that they will no longer fund. As the Secretary of State said, education, health and the environment will lose £200 million a year. The hon. Member for South-West Surrey must explain where the money will come from.
	I understood that volunteers and community groups were important to the Conservative party—volunteers will certainly be needed for the Olympics. Yet, if we reverted to the four pillars, a further £65 million a year would be lost to community and voluntary groups. I have given the correct figures for the money that is spent outwith the four pillars.
	However, I accept that the Olympic legacy plan has the key objective of maximising an increase in UK participation at the grass roots in all sports and for all groups. If we are to achieve it, we must do more work in schools, and with our national and community sports and our recreational organisations. As the Secretary of State said, it is vital to get the country more active, and achieving that will not be easy. We cannot rely simply on our hosting the games. I am sure that the Secretary of State accepts the comments of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that no host country has yet been able to demonstrate a direct benefit from the Olympic games in the form of a lasting increase in participation.
	As well as hosting the games, we must do much more. As I said earlier, many good things are happening. The Secretary of State was good enough to mention the excellent UK school games that were held during the summer in Bristol and, significantly, Bath. He, the Minister for the Olympics, the sports Minister and the shadow sports Minister all came along. I am sure that they will all testify that it was a wonderful and inspiring event. I remind the hon. Member for South-West Surrey that it was partly funded by millennium funds—one of the pillars that he would ditch. However, I am glad that he enjoyed it. One thousand five hundred Paralympic and able-bodied elite athletes took part. However, perhaps the Secretary of State did not know when he visited that, to make the event happen, many people volunteered.
	Volunteering is a critical part of the legacy that we must build in our work leading up to 2012. It was fantastic to hear what some of the young people who volunteered at the UK school games said—they now want to go on and get into the various programmes that will help them volunteer for 2012.
	I accept that there have been some fantastic improvements in some matters. As the Secretary of State said, 90 per cent. of school pupils now do two hours of sport each week—indeed, in my constituency, the figure is 92 per cent. In my area, which is covered by the former county of Avon, we have a fantastic county sports partnership, Wesport, which is doing amazing work to increase participation by linking schools and sports clubs, encouraging more coaching and volunteering, organising inter-school competitions and much more. The Secretary of State referred to increases in inter-school sports competition. Perhaps the best evidence of Wesport's success is the fact that in the past year 14,991 young people from the area took part in inter-school sports competition—an increase in one year of 9,053 which is a phenomenal improvement.
	Sadly, however, the picture is not entirely as rosy as the Secretary of State made out. Despite the figures that he cited, 750,000 young people are not participating in two hours of sport in school time. He did not point out that that two-hour period includes changing time, so it is not two hours of sport. He also failed to make any reference to some of the age groups in which young people are not participating at anywhere near that level. Only 71 per cent. of pupils in year 10 and 66 per cent. of pupils in year 11 are doing the two hours, while 34 per cent. of pupils are not participating in intra-school competitions and 59 per cent. do not take part in inter-school competitions. One quarter of pupils do no sport outside school and the drop-out rate of people who leave school and then do no sport is alarming. Despite significant improvements, which I welcome, there is still a great deal to be done.
	It is easy to reel off the figures, but if we accept that analysis, the question is: what can be done about it? I would like to suggest to the Secretary of State, the Minister for the Olympics and the sports Minister that a number of things can be done, the first of which is to be very wary of setting targets. I welcome the reorganisation of Sport England and believe that the new approach is right. However, the Secretary of State should be well aware of what has happened under his Government over the past 10 years, during which time Sport England has missed nearly all the targets that were set for it. Of the 22 targets that I have asked parliamentary questions about, only two have been met. As for the others, either they were missed or we have been told that there are no data on them.
	Let me give the Secretary of State an illustration. One of his Department's public service agreements was to increase participation in sport by ethnic minorities. To achieve that, the Department tied it to a Sport England commitment to make some 4,000 grant awards, which will significantly benefit people from ethnic communities. That is all well and good, but then I asked the sports Minister a parliamentary question about how well we had done in achieving that target, to which I received the following reply:
	"Sport England does not record information on which groups funding is focused. Therefore, it is not possible to give a figure for the number of awards made by Sport England to projects that have significantly benefited people from ethnic communities in each year since 1999."—[ Official Report, 1 July 2008; Vol. 478, c. 883W.]
	So, we set a target but we do not even keep any data on whether we have achieved it.

Diane Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to talk about getting funding for ethnic minority groups, but not to bother recording the necessary information, is to pay the most blatant lip service? When we consider the enthusiasm for sport and activity among ethnic groups throughout the country and their difficulty in accessing support, Ministers really should be ashamed.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady is absolutely right.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is making a speech decrying targets, but if it were not for targets he would have very little to say. His entire speech has been about mocking or deriding the targets that have been set.

Don Foster: I think not, but I shall try to make some progress and give him a few more suggestions. The introduction of a gross profits tax is one example and the suggestion for how that could fill the black hole in the Olympic elite athletes budget is another, but let me give him some more.
	The first suggestion is to look into providing more support to community sports organisations. The first thing that we ought to do is to introduce a gross profits tax, which would put more money in. The second thing is to provide more support, to get more coaches and volunteers active. The third thing is to provide more protection for our playing fields. The Secretary of State rightly said that the Government had improved the arrangements. However, I hope that he will not deny that since 2001 some 267 playing fields that were covered under the legislation have been sold off, despite Sport England's saying that doing so would be a threat to sporting facilities.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will also agree that in 2002 the then Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), promised the House that increased measures would be taken to protect smaller playing fields, which are those smaller than the 0.4 hectare area covered by the current rules, but bigger than 0.2 hectares. In 2006, the Secretary of State's Department gave me a parliamentary answer that said categorically that the Government were looking into the issue and that something would be done. In January 2008, I received a further answer that said categorically that they were looking into the issue and that something would be done, but to date nothing has been done. Will the Secretary of State intervene on me and give a categorical assurance that the Government will introduce measures to protect smaller playing fields, as was promised as far back as 2002?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is making a good, balanced speech and has made some fair points about playing fields. My hon. Friend the sports Minister and I regularly discuss such matters with colleagues across Government. I believe that there is some scope to tighten further the way in which the regulations operate. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have created a tight system, through the double lock of Sport England and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. If the hon. Gentleman compares that with the pre-1997 situation that I described, he will find that it has been incredibly effective in ensuring that playing fields are not sold with a resulting loss of sporting provision.

Don Foster: I am of course grateful to the Secretary of State, but I was hoping for a commitment to do what the Government keep committing to, but do not do. In July 2002, and again on 24 July 2006, the Government said in a press release:
	"New legislation is also to be put in place to protect smaller playing fields. This change brings down the size threshold upon which Sport England must be consulted when a planning application for development is submitted from 0.4ha to 0.2ha".
	I also received a response to a question in January that said that the Government were going to do that, so I hope that we will get some action and not just the words that we have heard today from the Secretary of State.
	We also need to do more to help community sports clubs. The Government have rightly introduced the CASC—community amateur sports club—scheme, which we welcome. However, despite the enormous benefits that can accrue to clubs from becoming a CASC—an 80 per cent. mandatory business rate relief, the ability to raise funds from donations under gift aid, tax-free income from interest and capital gains, and so on—of the 30,000 clubs that are deemed eligible to qualify, only 5,000 have done so to date. It is critical that we all work together to get that message out so that more clubs can qualify.
	We must do other things to help those clubs. As the Secretary of State has responsibility for licensing as well as for sport, may I ask him to look very closely into the concerns being expressed about the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 on many sports clubs? Only yesterday, the Central Council of Physical Recreation presented evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport of the huge additional burden being placed on clubs of having to pay for the licence application and all the legal and planning work that is necessary for those applications.
	This is admittedly an extreme example, albeit one that was cited yesterday, but one yacht club whose annual bar turnover is just £3,500 pays the same for its licence as a wine bar situated next door that is open until 2 am every night of the week and whose turnover is likely to be nearer £3,500 a week. That cannot be right. We need to look at ways of lightening that burden. Giving the 80 per cent. rate relief to clubs that become CASCs is a way forward. Perhaps a similar relief could be considered in respect of licence fee applications as well.
	Only recently has it come to light that, because of changes in the way in which utility companies charge for land drainage, a huge additional burden is being placed on many sports clubs. Only one utility company has started the new procedure, but I am assured that it is to be rolled out to all water companies. That will result in a fantastic increase in charges to many sports clubs. One tennis club's charges have gone up by 2,841 per cent., from £85 to £2,500. That is unsustainable, and I believe that the Government should look at positive measures to provide help.
	A further way of providing help would be to consider a simple change to gift aid. If only the Government would accept the proposal to allow gift aid to be used on junior subscriptions to sports clubs. The cost to the Government would be a mere drop in the ocean— £1.6 million in the first year, rising to £4.3 million in later years—yet the measure could bring in about £1,500 per sports club per annum. That would be an enormous boost to the clubs, and provide enormous encouragement for young people to get involved in sport.
	We are worried that some of the things that could be done have not been done, and we are somewhat disappointed with the present legacy plans. We are optimistic about the future, but we believe that more could be done. I have outlined a number of proposals, and I hope that the Government will be willing to listen to them and, more importantly, to act on them.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I point out that we have spent almost two hours of this three-hour debate on Front-Bench speeches? There is very little time left, so please will hon. Members try their best to make their speeches as brief as possible, so that I can call as many Members as possible?

Lyn Brown: I am almost at a loss for words when I try to describe the pride and anticipation that I felt when London was chosen as the venue for the 2012 games, and my delight that the Olympic park—centred in my constituency—is now starting to take shape. The clearing of the site and the initial infrastructure works are going well, despite a few unexpected changes. The power lines that blighted the skyline of the area for years are now being dismantled, and work continues to improve the waterways and the surrounding park, breathing new life into what were, quite literally, the backwaters of the east end of London. The stadium is emerging from the ground, and the seating support structure is already in place for all to see. An area that was a post-industrial polluted wasteland is well on the way to becoming the parklands of the Olympic site.
	However, today's debate is focusing not on the progress being made with the construction—impressive though that might be—but on the Olympic legacy. I want to focus not just on the sporting and cultural legacy—important though they will be—but on the entire legacy of the games. This is unashamedly a speech by a local MP advocating on behalf of her constituents. As I do not have much time this afternoon, I am not going to reiterate the many reasons why I am standing on my feet making this speech. I am not going to give the House a statistical analysis of the poverty in London—a London which, despite City bonuses and high incomes, is also a London of real economic deprivation and hardship, in which many struggle to survive. Newham is the fourth poorest local authority in London. Its neighbours—and fellow Olympic host boroughs—Tower Hamlets and Hackney are the poorest and second poorest respectively.
	The London bid for the games was predicated on leaving behind an important legacy for my constituents. The bid documents stated that
	"by staging the Games in this part of the city, the most enduring legacy of the Games will be the regeneration of an entire community for the direct benefit of everyone who lives there".
	The ambition of the bid was big, but not unachievable. The games present us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a real, positive difference to an entire community in, arguably, the poorest area of the country. It is for this obvious reason that the Olympic and Paralympic games must not simply be a fabulous sporting and cultural spectacle for a few weeks in the summer of 2012. They must become a mechanism for leaving lasting improvements in the health, housing, employment and skills of Londoners. To spend that amount of money and not achieve a lasting positive legacy would be obscene.
	The legacy commitments promised to east London were outlined in a document released at the beginning of the year, entitled "Five legacy commitments". The commitments included a new urban park, which we were assured would be "world-class", and an Olympic village of just under 3,000 affordable homes, of which it was stated:
	"After the Games, retained venues and new parklands will provide local people with places to spend their leisure time".
	The document goes on to say:
	"The Aquatics Centre will be open for community use and the Polyclinic, a medical services unit for athletes during the Games, will be transformed into a primary care centre for local residents."
	That sounds sensible: the swimming pool is to be used by the local community and a new health facility will be in situ for the new community being built in Stratford.
	But there appear to be some problems. The Olympic aquatics centre was to have had a community leisure and fitness facility built next to it and linked to it. The London borough of Newham—and, to a lesser extent, the London borough of Tower Hamlets—had pledged financial support to build this important community facility. Such a centre would provide local communities with additional access to much-needed sport and fitness facilities. But I understand that these proposals may have been dropped, and that this legacy proposal, with the potential to improve the health of the local community and widen its access to sports facilities, appears to have been abandoned.
	The aquatics centre, which was intended to be the landmark Olympic venue, is now to be the only swimming pool of its size in the western world in recent memory to have been built without community use as part of the scheme. Sadly, it has also emerged even more recently that the health centre will not materialise. Instead of a permanent athletes medical centre, we are to receive a temporary facility, to be built for the games and demolished afterwards. And the stadium! This field of dreams still does not have any post-2012 tenants who can work with the community to provide affordable multi-use facilities. Unfortunately, it now seems too late for it to benefit from the interest expressed many months ago by an excellent local premier league side—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Thank you.
	The international broadcast and press centre, a key legacy commitment to boost a growing telecommunications and information technology industry, also appears to be facing an uncertain future. Potentially, this project has the scale and impact to deliver a legacy promise of transformation. It would be an immeasurable loss of opportunity if it were not retained to be used as a catalyst for sustainable high-tech industry. Just as ominous are the indications not only that the athletes' village is being further downsized, with more athletes sharing fewer apartments, but that the private sector financing for this key part of the project now seems to have dried up. Government funding now seems crucial to the project.
	In Newham alone, we have more than 20,000 families on the housing waiting list, and more than 5,000 families housed in expensive temporary accommodation, often making it impossible for people to work and to pay their rent, as they are reliant on benefits to keep a roof over their heads. I would like to press the Minister to consider intervention to ensure that after the games, we use the athletes' village to alleviate some of the desperate housing need in the area, and to provide a genuinely mixed-use development of family homes. It would be a very positive move if the new Homes and Communities Agency could take an active role in the funding and design of the Olympic village to ensure community benefit from a significant build of new and potentially affordable housing on site.
	There are other legacy opportunities that are not building-based, and I congratulate the Government on investing in the local employment and training framework, which has provided skills and employment to thousands of people. I am told that 24 per cent. of workers employed on the Olympic park site now originate from one of the five host boroughs.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Government are to be congratulated on what they have done so far, the number of people from the Olympic boroughs employed on the Olympic park remains regrettably low, however much that fact may dismay contractors and their representatives? One way in which the big contractors are getting round and massaging the figures for local labour is by bringing labourers from all over Europe into the Olympic boroughs and putting them in hostels. Those labourers are then counted as local people, but in fact they have been shipped in from all parts of Europe. To provide a lasting legacy in boroughs such as Hackney, which have high crime rates, we need to offer our young people real opportunities to work.

Lyn Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What concerns me about these figures is that we have no method of monitoring whether these are truly local people or simply workers temporarily resident in the local area in order to obtain employment. My community has a rich history of welcoming people from all over the world, but the one thing that they ask of such people is that they stay and become part of the community so that they contribute to the fabric in which we live. Unfortunately, some people are coming in and living temporarily or "hot-bedding" in small domestic homes, creating difficulties in local communities, and they will leave as soon as the work has finished. What we need is a methodology able truly to track whether the people counted in these surveys are indeed local people.
	It is also sad to note that only an estimated 6 per cent. of those currently working on Olympic sites have arrived through apprenticeships or Olympic training programmes. Given the high unemployment in Newham and surrounding areas and the documented lack of formal training and skills owned by members of those communities, I urge the Government to do all they can to increase these figures for the long-term economic future of the borough.
	The legacy of the Olympics is more than just the sum of its parts—despite my contribution today, I know that. It is also more than the buildings. The motivation that fuels those of us who, despite these problems, very much support the games in London, is the potentially transforming nature of those games for communities. The hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) rightly mentioned the record levels of volunteering, the interest and investment in sporting clubs and coaching infrastructure. That shows that the games are not just about the physical side, but about the development and evolution of new and existing communities in a sustainable manner, which requires long-term planning, and, I believe, immediate action.

Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, raising many pertinent points. She started out by talking about poverty in the east end, but poverty—and child poverty, in particular—is not just about money and housing, but about poverty of experience. One proposal put to me—and, I suspect, to my hon. Friend and other east London MPs—came from the Field Studies Council. It proposed having an outdoor learning centre that could bring children in from areas across London and throughout the country so that they could benefit from nature studies and associated activities. Would my hon. Friend support that proposal for post-2012?

Lyn Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, and I support that proposal. Being a local girl who grew up in Newham, I recall benefiting from a field study trip to a little place called Maldon in Essex. It was my very first time away from home, at the age of 10, and I can say that it was a life-changing experience. I have not often been back to Essex since, but perhaps I should go.
	It seems to me that the current Olympic budget is modest for an event that would help to improve the life chances of the poorest Londoners—the 40 per cent. of London's children who live in poverty. It is modest in view of the relief it could bring to thousands of families living in temporary accommodation; modest in that it could upskill millions of citizens in London and its neighbours, creating prosperity for communities; modest for improving the health of a community of people who die earlier than their neighbours; and modest for re-energising the nation in 2012, boosting young people's interest in sport and reminding the globe's travellers of what an amazing place London is to visit.
	The Government and the Olympic Delivery Authority have worked tirelessly to ensure that the budget is managed and remains at a sustainable level. The Government are right to be mindful of the need for responsible spending, particularly at a time of financial difficulty. With the UK suffering the effects of the global economic downturn, it is clear that the budget may have to be reviewed, along with the precise design and make-up of the Olympic park and venues. But this review has to be balanced.
	To host the second London austerity games, as some are already suggesting, would betray not only the ethos and vision of the Singapore bid, but the vision and the hope that is based on the opportunity to regenerate east London and its surrounding areas. By correctly implementing the regeneration ethos of the Singapore bid, east London can be changed from an area of relatively poor health and high unemployment to a community based on skills, aspiration and healthy activity. The Government have worked hard towards achieving that goal to date, but I would urge them to redouble their efforts and approach the current funding difficulties with the same vigour and determination as my constituent, Christine Ohuruogu, at the finish line in Beijing.
	My constituents, who continue to endure the disruption that the seven-day-a-week construction inevitably causes and who have seen local residents and businesses forced to relocate, not only deserve legacy commitments in exchange for that disruption and for their enthusiastic support for the project, but need them to be delivered to allow them to break free of the deprivation that holds back the dreams of so many. They should be allowed the new housing, new sports facilities, cleaner and greener environment and the wider increased job opportunities that the legacy has the potential to offer.
	I end my contribution—I do not often do this—by quoting a passage from one of my own speeches made a couple of weeks after the Olympic bid was won. I said that if the Olympic games failed to benefit—benefit, not displace—the people I have just spoken about, the games would have been a failed opportunity and a failed investment. I believe that that statement has stood the test of time.

John Whittingdale: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)—not just because we learned of her life-changing experience when she visited my constituency, but because she made some important points. I shall return to one or two of them later. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) on organising this debate. It is good to see so many Members wishing to participate; I shall endeavour not to detain the House for too long.
	The Olympic games have been an easy target in the past and there has been a lot of negative coverage in the media. I hope that that is now changing. I have to admit that, as the Secretary of State pointed out, the Select Committee was unduly pessimistic about our chances in Beijing. I acknowledge that we got that wrong and I send my congratulations to all our athletes on a magnificent performance in Beijing. I would also like to congratulate the Chinese—something that happens less often in this place—on putting on a fantastic Olympic games. They set a standard that we will have to work very hard to reach. As the Mayor of London told my Select Committee a few weeks ago, we may not be in a position to spend quite as much on the games as the Chinese, but we are endeavouring to produce a "cosier" games. That is something that we can look forward to.
	I have no doubt that the games will be a great success. They will provide a fantastic spectacle for people in this country, and a further platform for our athletes to demonstrate their prowess. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey pointed out, the real objective on which we should focus is the legacy, and that will be very hard to achieve. Not many previous games have achieved great success in legacy terms.
	The Select Committee visited Seoul, which hosted the games some years ago. The facilities there were wonderful, but most stood empty. There was a vast swimming complex where just a few people were swimming up and down the lanes, and there were running tracks that were barely used. We also visited Athens, which, if anything, was even more depressing: weeds were growing on the running tracks, and some of the sites were in an appalling state of disrepair. The Greeks were frank with us, admitting that they had been so fixated on completing the work in time for the games that they had not really thought about what would happen to the facilities afterwards. As the Select Committee has said, and as I think the Government have recognised, it is essential to take account of legacy use right from the start, when the facilities are being planned.
	The Committee concluded in its most recent report that both the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and the Olympic Delivery Authority were doing pretty well. They are, I believe, further ahead than previous organising committees have been, and the International Olympic Committee has been impressed by the amount that has already been achieved. As for the legacy, I want to discuss three aspects of it: the "hard legacy", sporting participation, and tourism—a subject whose importance my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey rightly stressed, although in my view we are falling far short of what is potentially achievable.
	The "hard legacy" was always going to be difficult. We are building a flagship Olympic stadium at a cost of half a billion pounds. In other Olympic cities, such venues have subsequently become national stadiums where national football competitions take place: they become the prestige venues. Of course, we already have one of those, on the other side of London, and it is unrealistic to believe that the Olympic stadium will be able to compete with Wembley. I must say, though—without wishing to upset the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen)—that it is disappointing that no premier league club has said publicly that it is at least willing to consider the Olympic stadium as its future home. That would transform it. We shall have to work very hard to ensure that it continues to be used as it should, given the amount of money that is being invested in it. Perhaps more thought should have been given at the design stage to how that was to be achieved.
	The hon. Member for West Ham rightly referred to the aquacentre. At a cost of £300 million—although the candidate file predicted that it would cost £73 million—it will be the country's premier swimming competition venue. That will be terrific, but it is disappointing that more has not been done to ensure its leisure use. It is all very well for national swimming competitions to take place there, but I suspect that the constituents of the hon. Member for West Ham would rather have a pool where their children could enjoy themselves at weekends. If leisure facilities are being cut back, that is a shame, and poses the danger that the aquacentre will not be used as we would all like it to be.
	I am also concerned about another project mentioned by the hon. Member for West Ham, the establishment of an international broadcasting centre and main press centre. We have not been told exactly how much that will cost, although we fear that it too may prove to be more expensive than initially forecast. However, it does provide an opportunity.
	This is not just a vast warehouse; it will be a highly technologically equipped warehouse, with a potential for later use by the creative and media industries. I know that the mayor of Hackney and others in that part of London have ambitions for it, believing that it could become a media centre bringing income and employment to the area. I was reassured when the Select Committee was told that it was not true that it was likely to end up as a supermarket distribution centre. We have also been told that reports that it will be a temporary venue to be dismantled later are not correct. Again, I hope that thought will be given to its future use, and that the ambitious plans for its appeal to the media industries will not be dismissed. It would be a great shame if it, too, became a vast empty building sitting in east London.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey mentioned shooting. It is probably too late to revisit the debate about whether Bisley was a possible venue, although I still find it extraordinary that a world-class shooting centre should be ruled out on the basis that the road might not be good enough for the spectators, or that it was a bit too far away. The Select Committee was disappointed about that.
	I was delighted to hear from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) about the inspiration gained by the young people of Greenwich from knowing that they are engaging in sport on an Olympic site. I do not discount that; I am sure that it is a motivating factor for them to know that they are playing in the place where an Olympic competition will shortly be held. Nevertheless, it is extremely disappointing that all the shooting facilities that will be built in Greenwich will then be taken down, and that there will be no real trace of evidence that shooting ever took place there. The Select Committee continues to hope that every thought will be given to how we can use the Greenwich facilities to ensure that there is a legacy to benefit shooting, perhaps not in Greenwich but in other places.
	The real target, although it is harder, is not the hard legacy but the soft legacy: sporting participation. As far as the Committee can see, no country has achieved a permanent increase in participation as a result of hosting the Olympics. That is not to say that we should not try to be the first to do so. The Government, and indeed our original bid, laid great stress on that being the real prize if we could pull it off. However, having examined the preparations that are being made with the aim of achieving increased participation in sport, the Committee concluded that, although Sport England is apparently to invest £183 million in multi-sport community projects, it would probably have supported such projects in any event, and they would merely be rebadged in order to be associated with the Olympic games.
	The Secretary of State spoke of his ambitions for free swimming, and the money that the Government were providing, but he also said that that was always going to be a locally driven project.

Richard Caborn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that had it not been for the 2012 London Olympics, we would not have the UK school games every year? Earlier this year, 1,600 of our young people competed at the highest possible level in Bath and Bristol as a direct result of our winning bid, and that will continue well beyond 2012. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) attended the opening ceremony, and was instrumental in bringing the event to Bath and Bristol. Would not its continuation be a fantastic legacy, given that it will ensure early participation in sport among young people of school age?

John Whittingdale: I am happy to agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. I am delighted that the UK school games have been so successful. I shall say a little more about school sport in a moment, but let me say first that my local district council, having sat down and looked very closely at the figures, concluded that the introduction of free swimming for the over-60s would result in a significant increase in council tax, because the Government's money would not go nearly far enough. That is why many people think that, as in other trumpeted Government schemes such as free transport for the over-60s, local councils might end up having to pay the bill, because the Government's words exceed by a wide margin the amount of money they are prepared to put into them.
	The ambition to increase the amount of time for school sport to five hours per week is a noble one and I would be delighted if it could be achieved, but I remain concerned that we do not really know how the Government intend to go about that. If part of that extra time for sport is to come out of the school day, what will have to be dropped? If it is not to come out of the school day, but is to take place after school, we will rely hugely on the community and amateur sports clubs to deliver that. I was going to talk about the evidence my Committee received yesterday during our inquiry into licensing, but the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—who I am delighted to learn is paying such assiduous attention to our proceedings—has already made the point that licensing is just one example of the burdens on community sports clubs, which are threatening the existence of many of them. Therefore, if the Government are to look to community sports clubs to deliver their ambition, it will be necessary for them to provide further help to enable them to do that.
	The third plank of legacy—tourism—is incredibly important. It was recognised by the Government as a legacy that could benefit the whole of the UK, and not just the east of London. In order to deliver that, we need to promote Britain. When the Government published their strategy for tourism, they said that VisitBritain would be the body tasked with delivering the tourism legacy. We therefore still find it inexplicable that the Government should choose this moment to cut VisitBritain's budget by 40 per cent. I hope that the Government will reconsider that and give greater priority to tourism than they have done to date so that we achieve the full tourism legacy.
	I do not, however, wish my speech to be entirely negative. I think that a great deal has been achieved. I pay tribute to LOCOG and the ODA. I have no doubt that the Olympic games will be a great success, and I hope that they will deliver a lasting legacy to this country, but if that is to be achieved, there are areas in which we should be doing more.

Kate Hoey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). The fact that so many Members still wish to speak and we have such a short time left shows that this issue should be regularly debated in Parliament, instead of us having to wait for the Opposition to call a debate on it. The public want to know what is going on. Our constituents are asking us about Olympic legacy and it is important that we have these opportunities. It is also important that when people make certain criticisms or raise points, it is not seen as opposition to the Olympic legacy and the Olympic ideals.
	I worked with Colin Moynihan before he was chairman of the British Olympic Association to produce, on an all-party basis, a very good document called "Raising the Bar", many of whose recommendations I am delighted that the Government are gradually introducing. Many of the matters we are discussing this afternoon can be addressed on an all-party basis, which is why it is not particularly sensible for us to be dividing on this subject this afternoon, as the votes and the wordings of motions and amendments never fully reflect the full scale of the debate.
	I want to draw a distinction in terms of the legacy of the Olympic venues, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) referred clearly in her very good speech. A part of the Olympic legacy is the park and what will happen to it. Some of the legacy planning was not done early enough, and as the economic situation gets worse, we will be in an increasingly difficult situation. We clearly won the Olympic bid before the Beijing games on the basis of the legacy. Some people now probably wish that word had never been mentioned, because it is being used all the time. For me, the "legacy" does not mean just a fantastic Olympic games for the participating athletes; we take that for granted. I also think we should not even be thinking of trying to model ourselves on Beijing. We should, as far as possible, get back to the ideals of sport for its own sake. Of course, the athletes will make lots of money—the very successful ones will make huge sums. The broadcasters will also make money, and the International Olympic Committee will make a fortune out of the London games, but, ultimately, it is about delivering a good sports programme in good conditions. I am confident that LOCOG will do that very well, and that the Olympic Delivery Authority will make sure that the buildings are completed in time—even if it costs huge sums of extra money and that money comes from the contingency fund. The necessary amount will be found. The Olympic games will take place in 2012 no matter what happens to the economy.
	I agreed to take on the advisory job on the sporting legacy for London for the new Mayor of London because I believe that the legacy, in terms of the participation of Londoners—I am speaking here as a London MP—is what has been sorely missed out. There has been no planning and there has been no joined-up working on it. Some very good things are happening in all our boroughs that Members could talk about. Excellent partnerships are taking place, and there is a huge opportunity to work with the governing bodies. I particularly welcome Sport England's emphasis on "all sport plans", because, if they are carried through properly, they will address the problem in areas of London, such as my constituency, where substantial numbers of young people from black and ethnic minorities have not been participating for a variety of reasons. That will have to be built into the all-sport plan, which is where local communities will increasingly have to look to get their funding. This ambition can be achieved.
	Londoners are paying a little bit extra, although I know that Scotland has its problems with what it will get out of this, as does Northern Ireland. On Northern Ireland, I ask the Minister for the Olympics, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State to stop referring to "Great Britain", as that term excludes a substantial part of the United Kingdom. The name of the team should be Team UK. I have made that point to the BOA since my time as Sports Minister. I understand that Team GB might sound better, but it would not take much effort to start talking about Team UK, and we must stop referring to Great Britain. This is a games for the whole of the United Kingdom. Londoners are, however, paying a little bit extra.

Nigel Dodds: I have recently corresponded on the issue of the Team GB name with the Minister for the Olympics. It is an issue that has caused concern in Northern Ireland, and she has written to me, explaining that it is, indeed, the Olympic Committee of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and, indeed, the other parts as well. I hope that this point is listened to carefully, and that we do not repeat the errors of the past.

Kate Hoey: I want my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) to have a chance to speak, but let me comment briefly on the siting issue. I know that what I have to say will upset my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). I agree that it is unimaginable—other than that it looked nicer, perhaps—for shooting to be being held at the venue in question. It should be taking place at Bisley, or in a new purpose-built Dartford centre. However—

Nick Raynsford: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kate Hoey: No, I will not allow my right hon. Friend to intervene as I know what he will say, and we disagree on this. We can agree to disagree.

Nick Raynsford: Will my hon. Friend give way, as she raised an issue about my constituency?

Kate Hoey: No, I will not give way, as the issue has been raised already. Many Members have raised issues about other constituencies.
	I have not seen the result of the KPMG report, and I am not sure what the task was, but I think it is important that we see the detail—

Nick Raynsford: Will my hon. Friend give way? She raised a point affecting my constituency and refuses to give way.

Kate Hoey: I wish my right hon. Friend would grow up, but I shall give way.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend talked about the legacy for London and for Londoners. Will she tell the House how she, as a London MP, is helping the legacy for London and Londoners by moving that Olympic site out of London to somewhere far away when I have described the inspirational benefit of knowing that the Olympic games will take place in that area?

Kate Hoey: I am interested in the legacy benefits for the sport of shooting. The legacy benefits of having it at Woolwich would be absolutely nil.
	I would also like to draw the attention of the Minister for the Olympics to the concern about equestrianism. As I understand it, the modern pentathlon does not need to use either of the equestrian venues, which has been the reason given. It is not too late to reconsider that—I think that we should.
	I am obviously going to upset a few Members today, but I have particular responsibility for the grass-roots legacy of the Olympics. None of it is rocket science. We all know what is needed: more and better coaching and joined-up working involving groups such as school clubs and community clubs. Before the previous sports Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), stands up and shouts too, I should say that he has done a great deal to work towards that.
	Most of us in the Chamber are concerned about the same things. We want young people to have opportunities to participate, and we want those who have a talent to be picked up, helped and supported so that they can aspire to be an Olympian with a gold medal. However, there is still a huge gap in London that nobody is really thinking about: the facilities gap. Facilities are not funded in any joined-up way. Swimming pool after swimming pool has closed, including two just the other week in Redbridge. There is no plan to create new swimming pools, and if we do not show that we will get money for pools in the long term, we will lose a great deal of the inspiration that the Olympics will bring to many young people.
	The challenge is that we sometimes have to say that sport cannot deliver everything. Because we have the Olympics and everyone is so excited about it, there is a tendency to think that sport can change everything in our society. Of course it can have an enormously positive effect on people's lives. It can be fun, and people playing sport can achieve personal development and health benefits, but there is an awful lot to be done by other people and through other interventions. Sport is not a magic solution to the world's problems, or even to the problems of our society. It can play a vital role in education, tackling crime, social cohesion and the other things that we see every day in our constituencies, but we need other interventions such as those by physical education and specialist teachers, of whom we are seeing more. We need people with knowledge and experience of working with families and with young people at risk to use sport, perhaps along with other measures, to deal with crime and help social cohesion initiatives.
	As I said earlier, this is not rocket science. Everyone says the same thing, but it is interesting that people's views about how it should be done, and who should be responsible for delivering and paying for the work, often differ once we get into the details. That is part of the problem, because the detail is not very sexy and exciting. It is about the hard work that goes in, with small groups doing good things. With just a little extra money, those groups can expand what they do and we can put things right across London.
	The legacy document will be practical and have one simple target: to increase participation in sport and physical activity in London. That will not be easy. As others have said, no other Olympics have increased participation in sport. If we want a different Olympics, we have to do that. The plan that will be launched in the new year will not be a wish list for sport. It will be ambitious but realistic, costed and, most importantly, achievable.
	The matters that we will cover in the plan are no secret to anybody: facilities, access, people and structures. They always need readdressing all over the country, but they require investment. There will be investment through the Mayor's fund and the London Development Agency, but all the local authorities in London need to work together and work closely with the Government. I am happy to meet the sports Minister, as I already have, because we can make a lot of things happen in London. However, London cannot always be treated like the rest of the country. There are 33 London boroughs that all have different ways of working. If we are to get co-operation between them, it must be led and directed by the Mayor with the support of the Government.
	I am confident that, despite all the financial difficulties, we can get the private sector involved. We have done that very well, although I am still worried that we do not have the money for elite athletes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough referred. We have to get that, and I do not want to see a plan, for example, for the men's Paralympic basketball team to be funded but not the women's because they did not get a medal. That would be wrong.
	I ask the Minister for the Olympics to please ensure that we have an opportunity for another debate soon. May I also ask her about an advert that suggests that we might be able to save £50,000? I see that on 20 October, the Government advertised for an Olympic speechwriter at the cost of £50,000 a year. I presume that that was some kind of spoof, because I cannot believe that we are spending £50,000 a year on that.
	We will have a wonderful Olympic games, but we have three and a half years to show that we can really make a difference to participation.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I inform Members that there are approximately 25 minutes left for Back-Bench contributions. If they can do the maths, everybody might get in.

Bob Neill: I shall be as brief as I hope I am naturally. I have some brief points to make as a London Member. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on securing this important debate. A lot of valuable contributions have been made, and I take on board what has been said by other London Members. However, I have a particular perspective on legacy as an outer-London MP.
	We will not get the direct benefits that some other boroughs will. My concern, since my council tax payers in Bromley are contributing along with other Londoners, and are willing to do so, is that they get a fair share of such legacy as there is. That applies in two ways, the first of which is the sporting legacy, about which we are concerned on a number of fronts. First, there is real concern that, for reasons that have already been mentioned, the need to move money away from lottery funding of local and community sport to bail out some elements of the Olympic budget will have a bad impact on many small sports clubs in constituencies such as mine.
	Secondly, there is the disappointment that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) alluded to: Crystal Palace, an iconic sporting venue in south London, does not seem likely to figure in the Olympic plans. We genuinely believe that that is a missed opportunity to regenerate what has always been south London's great sporting sub-regional centre. I hope that even today, even if it is a training facility, something can be done to give some legacy to people in south London, who are contributing to the Olympic effort and want it to succeed as much as anyone.
	The third concern that many in my constituency have is economic. Often, the large contractors come with their own established supply chains. Many businesses in south-east London are small and medium-sized enterprises. When I talk to local business men at the chambers of commerce and so on, they express concern that they are finding it difficult to get into the supply chains, much of which are predetermined by large principal contractors. I hope that the Government will ensure that that is borne carefully in mind. Those people want a fair crack of the whip and to see some of the action both in economic terms and in direct sporting paybacks. Otherwise, given that many of them will not be able to get to the games physically, there will be sadness that less sporting opportunity, not more, is available in places such as Bromley.
	My second point is on free swimming, which I make no apology for returning to. I wrote to the Secretary of State about nine days ago, and I am sure that the Minister will gently remind the Department that we would like a reply. Because of the demographics of Bromley, where some 17 per cent. of the population are over 60, the shortfall that Bromley council tax payers would face is £120,000. That is an awful lot of money and a significant disincentive. Ironically, about 30,000 over-60s from my borough and the surrounding ones already swim in pools in Bromley. Not only is there the disincentive of a funding shortfall, but the scheme is not flexible enough to allow Bromley to concentrate such resources as might be made available on those who do not swim, instead of having to give a blanket subsidy, including to those who are happy to swim and do so at the moment. Perhaps the Minister could examine the operation of that scheme, because it seems to involve an unintended and perverse consequence.
	My third point is about sport in schools. Bromley has very good school sport, and I accept that work is being done in this area, but more remains to be done. For example, we know that about 2.1 million children across the country are still not involved in competitive sport. I therefore welcome the Mayor of London's statement that he intends, in his revisions of the London plan, to place a particular premium on protecting school sports fields. I generally welcome the approach that Mayor Johnson has adopted towards working constructively with LOCOG—the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games—and the other Olympic agencies to ensure that we deliver an imaginative and festive Olympics, within a budget capable of being constrained and met by us all. I say that because, as the Minister will know, Londoners still have a potential contingent liability if we do not get things right. I am sure that we all want to work together to ensure that we do get them right.
	Finally, I wish to discuss an overlap between the sporting legacy and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) about the tourism feature. I do so at the risk of incurring the wrath of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). Many people in south-east London are concerned that although the equestrian events in Greenwich park will obviously bring a sporting interest—I do not seek to diminish that—there might be a risk of damage to the park, which is a world heritage site. I put this as mildly and gently as I can, because it has been flagged up in a number of well-researched publications. People are concerned about a potential perverse consequence. There may be a sporting advantage in holding those events at Greenwich, but without cast-iron guarantees that the park will not be done lasting harm, the tourist legacy, which is so important, might be damaged in the longer term. I hope that the Government will make absolutely sure that nothing happens to damage that, because Greenwich park is of huge value to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents and to people from surrounding areas who come to enjoy it. Nothing should happen to prejudice that key open-air space for people in our part of south-east London.
	With those deliberately short remarks, I, like all in the Chamber, again commend the Olympic project to hon. Members. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) for securing the debate. I hope that those issues that affect outer London as well as the Olympic boroughs will not be overlooked.

Andy Reed: I am sure that you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, the frustration felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the lack of time remaining in this debate. So, in conclusion— [Laughter.] I wanted to raise a number of issues, but I shall boil them down to just a couple.
	I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) was in the Chamber just a few moments ago. I was interested in Olympics before we even bid, and my hon. Friend and I toured around visiting Ministers and others to try to convince them to bid in the first place. The Olympics are a great pleasure, and I declare an interest as somebody who has been involved right from the start.
	The only reason why I ever wanted to see the Olympics come to the UK was the soft legacy, both for elite and community sport. Probably, 2012 will be the point at which I finally stop playing rugby—my wife will be delighted to learn that I have set a deadline at last—and so I will be one of the casualties of 2012, but it is true to say that the only reason why we need the games to succeed is to ensure that that soft legacy is provided in 2012. The most important measurement will be done in 2016; it will not be where we come in the medals table in 2012. Of course, I want us to come fourth and to do better, as well as to increase our participation rates, but the real measurement will be in 2016, and it will assess whether we have sustained that growth and interest that comes after 2012.
	The first of the issues from my original list on which I want to concentrate is the £100 million—it will now probably be about £79 million, if we genuinely do have the additional money from the lottery. The problem remains that by December, UK Sport will have to start to allocate the funding for the remaining four years. Everybody knows that the reason why we did so well in the Beijing Olympics was that no compromise was made. The athletes did their bit, but so did all the support staff—the people who surround the athletes. It is only when no compromise is made in every part of the preparation for an Olympic games that those involved make the difference that ensures that they get a gold, sliver or bronze, or even come fourth. We got lots of people into finals. Our athletics team did okay, because many more of our athletes got into finals than it was thought would get there, but the difference between winning and losing at that level is tenths or even hundredths of a second. A no-compromise approach for 2012 means that for the next four years we must get the same level of commitment from the Government and from all those other people. The reality is that a shortfall remains. The medal hopes scheme, which has been explained to me, does not plug that gap as far as I can see. We need the necessary level of certainty to be provided as quickly as possible.
	I have not got time to go into all the problems with the current scheme and the fact that UK Sport does not necessarily have many rights that it can put out into the market. I simply urge the Government—I hope that I am being helpful in doing so—to ensure that there is something to take to the Treasury to ensure that the situation is sorted out. I was involved in trying to secure the £300 million in the first place, so I am delighted that we have got it, but this other money is crucial. How sad it would be if, by Christmas, we were cutting programmes after we have all just celebrated some fantastic victories.
	Many of those victories originated in Loughborough. I have mentioned often enough the contribution that Loughborough makes, so I can skip over it now and not upset the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), but it is in places such as Loughborough that the nations and regions will benefit from what is happening in 2012. Many of the leading nations have visited and have subsequently made decisions; I hope that a nation such as Japan will perhaps base its team at Loughborough. What a fantastic cultural Olympiad that would bring—an event with flavour and a difference. I believe that about 150 international athletes are on campus at Loughborough university, so bringing an international flavour would be fantastic.
	The other area that I wish to discuss is volunteering. I have the honour of chairing the Strategic Partnership for Volunteers in Sport, which is the national voice that speaks up on behalf of the 4 million to 5 million sports volunteers who ensure that community sport is delivered week in, week out right across our nation. Without community sport and, in particular, without those volunteers, many of the aspirations about which many hon. Members have spoken just would not be realised. We may sometimes say platitudes about the value of volunteers—we all say that we know how valuable they are—but if we look around in our communities, we see the contribution that people make, week in, week out, to their community sports clubs. That is absolutely phenomenal, and without such people, none of this would happen.
	I would like to say a lot about nations, regions and strategies. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics knows, I am very disappointed with the legacy action plan—I have written to her several times over the past few years and have tried to hold meetings about it. However, I have got to the stage where I do not care about whether strategies look good or how many action plans there are; we just have to get on with it in the nations and regions. The reality is that not much new money will be coming our way, but we have many existing schemes to work with, so rather than just moaning and whinging, it is down to each of us, in our own constituencies, nations and regions, to get on with delivering the soft legacy. It is a tall order, but because of our great sporting tradition, the army of volunteers and the people totally and passionately committed to sport in this country, we can be the first nation to deliver a soft legacy.
	I urge the Minister to respond to some of the points raised today, especially the one about the £100 million; the issue is potentially a disaster. Many jobs in my constituency depend on funding for elite sport through the English Institute of Sport at Loughborough university, and it is also in the nation's best interests to sort the matter out as quickly as possible.

David Amess: I had the honour of chairing the Committee stage of the London Olympics Act 2006, when the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) was a sports Minister. I congratulate all those responsible on bringing the Olympic games to this country, and I very much hope that we will all be alive in 2012 to enjoy them. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) on initiating this debate and the positive way in which he made his points. I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about this being an important matter, and it is a shame that it has been left to the Opposition to raise it.
	Issues have been raised about who closed sports fields and what left-wing councils thought about children playing games. However, I was here when the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 was debated, and I do not recall unanimous support from Labour Members for the lottery. I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, John Major, for the way that the lottery has turned out. There is no doubt that the money channelled into encouraging young people to enter the Olympic games has paid off.
	It is a shame that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) is no longer in his place, because I agreed with everything that he said about football. Some premiership footballers are overpaid and under-perform, and it is an absolute disgrace that we did not have a team in the Olympic games—we must have one in 2012. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) will know that I am a West Ham boy, and I am very proud that some of the Olympic games will take place in West Ham. As a product of St. Bonaventure's grammar school, I endorse entirely all her remarks about West Ham's legacy opportunities.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey had the opportunity to visit Southend and will agree with all my points. Southend wants to be at the heart of the Olympic games celebrations. Although we are just on the cusp of London, the games present us with a real opportunity, and I was glad to hear what the Minister for the Olympics said about the opening and closing ceremonies. Southend has the longest pier in the world, but she will be aware that we have had three fires and that we are desperately engaged in its restoration. Sir John Betjeman once said:
	"The pier is Southend, Southend is the pier".
	It is a grade II listed building. We do not need to compete with Beijing—we will not need to bus people to the various events, because they will flock there in their thousands and millions to enjoy the activities—but will the Minister help Southend restore the pier? The opening and closing ceremonies could be a spectacular opportunity for it.
	The Secretary of State mentioned swimming and spoke about gentlemen swimming once a month and ladies twice a month. I am delighted to say that a swimming pool will be built in Garon park, with 95 per cent. of the cost borne by Southend council tax payers. I am very grateful for the support from Sport England, but we would like a little more. The swimming pool will be used as part of the training ground, and I am very pleased that some Paralympic events will take place there.
	I am delighted that Essex county council has splendidly grasped the opportunity to participate in the Olympic games. The biking event will take place in an adjoining constituency, and Southend council—my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey mentioned this when he opened the debate—is very concerned about the tourism legacy.
	I am delighted that Southend council has had discussions with Newham council about having a sort of river-bus service between our two towns. If there is something that we should celebrate, it is the River Thames. This is a wonderful opportunity for us fully to utilise the river.
	I had a very long speech prepared, but I shall simply say that we have two living examples of sporting prowess in Southend. Katrina Hughes, an 18-year-old product of the excellent Westcliff high school for girls, is one of the elite athletes in sailing. Of course, Mark Foster, who was educated and born in Southend, was waving and carrying the flag at the opening ceremony.
	The Secretary of State tried to savage his opposite number, but I did not feel that he was entirely successful. He will recall from when he was a member of the Select Committee on Health our inquiry into obesity. Trying to engage more people in sport and activities must be another lasting legacy.
	We will not argue about who was responsible for bringing the Olympic games to London in 2012. I congratulate everyone involved in that process. We want to ensure that we grasp this golden opportunity to celebrate the sporting prowess that we have in the UK. Let us encourage all our young people to get cracking to ensure that they are on the rostrum in 2012, beating the 47 medals that we got in the Olympic games this year.

Tom Brake: I congratulate Team UK on its fantastic performance at the Olympics. I also want to state how proud I am of David Weir, a double gold medallist and wheelchair athlete from my constituency.
	I welcome the focus on the sporting legacy and want to raise a couple of points. First, I want to encourage the Government to talk to the Swimming Teachers Association, which feels excluded from discussions on swimming. I think, too, that the Government need to look at the fact that the funding package is for only two years, which is causing local authorities some concern.
	On the subject of branding, there is still concern among local authorities that the Inspire programme might not be sufficient in raising the profile of what they are already doing in their constituencies and boroughs.
	On the subject of an infrastructure legacy, we have already referred to the North London line. I hope that it is secure and that it will remain as a long-lasting feature of the transport system in London.
	On the subject of the additional legacy, I know that Ministers are aware of the proposal from the Field Studies Council for a London education centre based in the Olympic park. That is certainly worthy of further investigation. I know that the Government are considering it, and I hope that it will come forward as a concrete plan in the not too distant future.
	Finally, on the subject of the sporting legacy, a couple of subjects have not been mentioned at all in the debate, the first of which is the legacy for people with learning disabilities. Post-2012, there must be something in place to enable that group, who are perhaps the most disadvantaged of all, to access sport and to participate fully. There needs to be a legacy for them. I want to encourage the Government to do everything they can to secure that legacy.
	Finally, post-2012, there is the issue of the legacy for UK Deaf Sport. The focus on the Olympics and Paralympics has meant that that organisation has not received much support. Post-Olympics, the Government need to come back to that.
	That is all that I can say in the time available, but I want to echo the words of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). The different criticisms that Members have made were not about nit-picking, but about trying to make the games even more successful in 2012 than we hope that they will be.

Hugh Robertson: I have always thought that one of the most striking things about the Olympics is that the term "Olympic legacy" means so many different things to so many different people. Today's debate has entirely reflected that and, I hope, has highlighted the need for a further debate in Government time on these important issues.
	During the course of the afternoon, we heard from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—Bath is the host of the UK school games—and the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who spoke rightly of her pride in the fact that her borough will host the Olympics. We share that pride.
	We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and I congratulate him on his report. In addition, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) deserves to be congratulated both on her initial report, "Raising the Bar", which, as she correctly said, formed the basis for the development of sports policy, and on the work she does in London: we look forward to her report in the new year, and the action that will follow.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke very well about the Olympic legacy for his constituents, while the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) raised the important issue of the missing £100 million. He also spoke about volunteering, and I thank him for his work in that regard. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) spoke absolutely correctly about the impact that the lottery has had in this area since it was introduced in the mid-1990s. He also described the legacy for his constituency, with the restoration of the pier at Southend. Finally, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) spoke briefly but well about swimming and branding.
	Right at the outset, it is worth saying that there are substantial areas of the Olympic project where we as a party support the Government. We share the Olympic Minister's determination to deliver London 2012 on time and within the main public sector funding package of £9.3 billion, and it is important that the wider Olympic movement understands that. In the current financial situation, there can be no further public money.
	I believe that that understanding is important for our national reputation for delivering major infrastructure projects. It will also enable us to scale down the Olympic budget in such a way that parts of the world that have never dared bid for a games in previous years can have the confidence to do so in 2020, 2024 and beyond. However, at the core of the motion is the question of sports legacy, and I pay tribute to the report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that has driven this debate.
	London's pledge to enable young people through sport was at the heart of our bid. Pitched to an audience of former Olympians and sports administrators, it is probably the single biggest reason London is the host city in 2012. The challenge before us today is to fulfil that promise to the International Olympic Committee, and to do whatever is necessary to enable us to benefit from the surge in enthusiasm, interest and inspiration generated from London 2012.
	What needs to be done? As always with sport, the task can be divided into three main areas: elite and high-performance sports, school sports and mass participation. Let us take the elite and high-performance area first. There are three main issues that need to be tackled. The first is the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Loughborough—the missing £100 million from the private sector that was promised by the Prime Minister in his March 2006 Budget when he was still Chancellor, but not yet delivered.
	I always thought that that was going to be an extraordinarily difficult commitment to fulfil. Even before the current economic crisis, LOCOG, the BOA, sport governing bodies and individual athletes were scouring the market looking for private sponsorship. I always doubted that a private company would pick up what many consider to be a Government funding shortfall.
	However, UK Sport planned, perfectly reasonably, for the full £600 million. As the hon. Member for Loughborough said, it would be disastrous if, in the aftermath of our most successful Olympics ever and before our own home Olympics, there had to be cuts in elite athlete training programmes. In my view, the Prime Minister's promise must be kept, and that amount paid in full.
	The second issue affecting elite and high-performance sport is the funding of the new National Anti-Doping Organisation. That has not been mentioned this afternoon, but I do not think that any hon. Member, of any party, would say anything other than that doping arguably represents the single greatest threat to Olympic sport. It is vital, particularly for us as the host nation, that we have the highest possible anti-doping standards in place.
	The Conservative party has always argued for a fully independent anti-doping agency, as highlighted some years ago in the cross-party report from the hon. Member for Vauxhall. I am delighted that the Government have reversed their previous opposition to such a body, and I urge them to agree the necessary funding as a priority. While they are about it, the logical next step is to put the sport dispute resolution service, Sport Resolutions, on an independent statutory basis to give it the teeth that it needs to tackle sports disputes.
	The third element in this area is the legacy for individual Olympic sports.

Nick Raynsford: rose—

Hugh Robertson: The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) jumps to his feet at that, but it is difficult to be absolutely clear about that legacy in advance of the publication of the KPMG report due out next month. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) said earlier, it would be a tragedy if each individual Olympic sport did not receive a tangible benefit from London 2012. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with that.
	If there is to be a legacy for school sport from London 2012, it has to be in two areas: more pupils should have the opportunity to play sport at school, a point the Secretary of State touched on at length, and, crucially, fewer of them should give up when they leave school at 16. It is to our shame that over successive years—indeed, over successive Governments—the UK has had one of the worst post-school drop-out rates in Europe.
	I pay tribute to the work of the Youth Sport Trust, and completely support the drive for more competitive sport in school, but four areas need greater attention. The first, which we must make an absolute priority—almost a crusade—is to reach the 10 per cent. of children who do not have the basic two hours of sport at present. There can be no excuse whatever for that, particularly as 78 per cent. of schools already provide it as part of their in-curriculum PE lessons. We must put that right.
	Secondly, we must take a more considered look at sports provision in primary schools. One of the flaws in the existing strategy is that it concentrates too much—at least in my view—on secondary provision, by which stage it is too late. If we can enthuse pupils at primary school it is likely that the love of sport and exercise will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
	The third area is inspiration, which is a constant theme when people talk about London 2012. There is an important role in that regard for the British Olympic Association as the guardians of Olympianism. We need to inspire all 450 school sport partnerships with the spirit of 2012. I want Olympians in every school and school games in every county. It is an organisational rather than a funding challenge, and the results can be spectacular, as those of us who saw the Kent school games this year are aware. I was lucky enough to open the games with Kelly Holmes. Kids from every school sport partnership in the county took part in a competitive county sports day; it was fantastic.
	Finally, there is mass participation, or community sport, which is central to the London 2012 vision and has been the area of greatest concern, as was highlighted in the Select Committee's report. Cuts to lottery funding, constant changes of strategy at Sport England and increased bureaucratic overload have contributed to the damning statistic that in a decade of lottery funding there has been no meaningful increase whatever in the number of people playing sport.
	The solution is relatively simple. First, the Government need to restore the lottery to its four original pillars, correcting the situation whereby the amount of lottery funding distributed to sport fell from £397 million in 1998, when the Secretary of State was a special adviser, to £209 million last year—a cut of nearly 50 per cent. Once that funding is restored, the second thing is to ensure that the correct delivery mechanisms are in place to drive up participation rates. I shall cheer up the Secretary of State by saying that I entirely support the new strategic direction of Sport England—to deliver increases in mass participation through the sport governing bodies—although I have to tell him that was exactly what we proposed at the last general election, and it is exactly what was in the cross-party "Raising the Bar" report some years ago; I only regret that it took so long to bring it about. It is unforgivable that Sport England, the Government agency involved in delivering that key pledge, has been without a chairman for more than a year. The chief executive has done a fantastic job, and we all congratulate her, but she should never have had to deal with all those things on her own.
	Finally, we need to encourage and incentivise local communities to engage in London 2012. A good start would be for many other local authorities to emulate the approach taken by the London Mayor and the hon. Member for Vauxhall in ring-fencing community sports funding in the London Development Agency budget and spearheading a drive to target grass-roots sport.
	Four months ago in Switzerland, the International Olympic Committee told me it wanted four things from a host nation Government: strategic direction, a budget, security and an identifiable legacy. Our motion and the debate have concentrated on the last of those—the legacy. It was the key commitment of the Singapore bid and, as highlighted in the Select Committee report, it remains the most difficult of those objectives to fulfil.
	The Government can react to the debate in one of two ways. Either they can try to claim that everything is perfect and that nothing needs to be done, or they can acknowledge the central feeling on both sides of the House that a certain amount has been done, but that much more needs to be done if we are to deliver a really meaningful mass participation sports legacy from London 2012.

Tessa Jowell: I should like to join everybody else in paying tribute to the quality of the debate. I welcome the fact that we have had this debate, and hope that we will have many more in the period—a little short of four years—ahead. One of the most important things about the Olympics is that we, both as parliamentarians and in all the other responsibilities that we exercise, are guardians of an event that it is an extraordinary privilege to host. It will create memories that will last for ever in the lives of all the people whom we represent. We will never have quite the same opportunity at any other point in our lives. As I say, I welcome this debate, which has been inspired by the performance of our Olympians and Paralympians in Beijing.
	I had the great privilege of spending yesterday with the British cycling team—the coaches, the performance director and the psychiatrist—in Manchester, and I am sure that the whole House would like to wish them all the very best for the cycling world cup, which takes place at the weekend. I saw the velodrome doing what it was intended to do—providing a world-class training facility for the best cyclists in the world. It is being used by community organisations of all ages, including an over-50s cycling club and children. I think that I am right to say that it is the most heavily used velodrome in the whole of Europe. When Chris Hoy launched the plans for our velodrome in Stratford park, he said that he believed that it would be the best in the world, so we need no amplification of our ambition. Despite the tendency to resort to our usual habits, it is important that we maintain cross-party agreement on how we manage, deliver and develop the games. That is important for any event that spans a Parliament, and that relates to my point about looking after something on behalf of the whole nation, rather than a particular political party.
	Five legacy promises were set out in the legacy action plan, which has had a bit of knocking this afternoon. It is a fact that investment is being made in sports participation and London transport. The investment ensures, almost counter-cyclically, that £6 billion—worth of contracts are regionalised, as far as possible, and relate to areas beyond London. That is all part of a clear commitment not to accept the inevitable about the Olympics, as has been the fate of other cities, but to drive the Olympic ambition in the direction that we want.
	We have big legacy ambitions, and one of the reasons our bid was so passionate had to do with the potential for legacy and the change that would occur before the games took place. When we won the bid, the games were seven years away. The delivery of legacy is complex, but the delivery structure is clear. The responsibility is shared between my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who is the Minister with responsibility for sport; the Mayor, who has some responsibility with regard to the Olympic park; and the London Development Agency. There is also a cross-Government legacy delivery responsibility, covering all other relevant Departments. The five boroughs also have an absolutely critical responsibility to work with Government to ensure that the Olympic park does not become an island of regeneration, with the area at its edges remaining unchanged. The Olympic boroughs, and my hon. Friends who represent them, share a passionate commitment to ensuring that that is not the case.
	Our ambition is clear, and it focuses on two of the five legacy promises—the two that, beyond all others, define what we are trying to achieve. The first relates to the regeneration of east London. That has been raised by a number of hon. Members, so I shall touch quickly on specific points. Yes, community use is designed into the aquatic centre and, yes, discussion will go on with the boroughs about their later proposal for a leisure and fitness facility. Yes, work is under way to ensure that once the Olympic stadium comes down to its legacy size, it will be a vibrant centre of sport and activity—not just for young people in the Olympic park, but for those from beyond.
	In her excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made a particular point about affordable housing. Some 30 per cent. of the housing in the first stage will be affordable. There will not be a polyclinic at the first stage, but there will be one as part of the second stage, as the number of homes increases to 9,000.
	The debate about the international broadcast centre and main press centre captures our dilemma perfectly: should we build what will in effect be a temporary shed, for which at the moment there is no long-term tenant, at considerable cost? Should we invest extra, at the risk of there not being a long-term tenant? Alternatively, should we stick with the original ambition that is so important for the Olympic boroughs in respect of the scope to offer up to 8,000 aspirational jobs in sunrise industries, the new and developing technologies? That is the dilemma, which we have not yet resolved. We will, of course, engage Members of Parliament, the Olympic boroughs and potential tenants in helping us resolve it.
	In response to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I should say that we are going to track local jobs. The proportion of local people working on the park is now up to 24 per cent., from 19 per cent. in the last quarter.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) are absolutely right about the importance of soft legacy and of having a sustained legacy for participation. That is why there is investment in new facilities through Building Schools for the Future and other programmes. There is a commitment to 3,000 coaches and a third of young people getting engaged in sports clubs as a first stage. There will be 1,000 young ambassadors throughout all our school sport colleges, talking to other young people, as only young people can, about the benefits and joys of sport.
	I should like to say two more things. The first is about the fraught question of shooting at Bisley, equestrianism at Greenwich and basketball. We have commissioned a report. All the venues are temporary. I spent a lot of time looking at the equestrian and shooting venues in China. We will make the decisions, but people should remember that one reason why we won the Olympics was that we agreed to bring shooting into the Olympic area and not have it at Bisley. We won because we promised a compact games. We are not operating on a blank sheet of paper and we cannot tear up past commitments; we have commitments to the International Olympic Committee and the expectations of the people in the relevant areas.
	I want to finish by saying that whatever controversy the legacy plans have generated in the House this afternoon, our approach has received praise from the IOC and from no less a quarter than the  Sydney Morning Herald, in which on 24 September the excellent Elizabeth Farrelly wrote that
	"one quality sets London 2012 apart"
	from the Sydney and other games:
	"Legacy; an intelligent, strategic approach to the morning after."
	She was referring to the morning after what will be the greatest games in Olympic memory, which will have benefits for young people and the east end for the rest of our lives.
	 Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 236, Noes 283.

Question accordingly negatived.

Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 June], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	 Question again proposed.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I would like to remind the House of the ruling that the Chairman of Ways and Means gave at the start of proceedings on 12 June. As the content of the Bills on the Order Paper is similar, if not identical, it was judged to be for the convenience of the House to have a general debate to cover all six measures. However, when the House disposes of the Manchester City Council Bill, debate on the subsequent measures will be local-authority specific. It would be contrary to the spirit of the original ruling to seek to conduct a generalised debate on each Bill.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to you for reminding us of that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to keep my remarks general rather than specific at this stage. When this debate was adjourned on 12 June, I was eight minutes into my remarks. Only 20 minutes of our three hours of debate on 12 June were taken up by hon. Members who are concerned about the Bills. The rest of the time was taken up by their sponsors and supporters. I therefore hope that those who are impatient to move things on will ensure that the other side of the argument can be heard, and will not try to curtail the debate before that is possible.
	A number of things have happened since the last debate. The promoters have published a further statement in support of the Second Reading of the Bills, paragraph 4 of which is very partial. It says:
	"The Bills were debated on second reading on 12th June, when a number of MPs took the opportunity to speak in favour of them. At the end of the allotted period, the proceedings had not been concluded and the debate was adjourned."
	There is no reference whatever to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), who made a succinct and pithy speech against the Bills, nor to my earlier remarks or the severe reservations that a large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends raised in interventions. I do not know whether this further statement contravenes the conventions of the House. I hope that none of the Members present will be taken in by paragraph 4, and that they will look at the rest of the statement with a similarly jaundiced eye.
	What else has happened since our last debate? Quite a lot of things. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) has become a father, and I congratulate him on that. Secondly, the pedlars resource centre has been established online at www.pedlars.info and, for the first time in this country, individual pedlars are realising that unless they get together and organise themselves, their future could be in severe jeopardy.

Ann Widdecombe: My hon. Friend says that pedlars' future will be endangered if these provisions go through. Surely, if the provisions are properly controlled, the rights of genuine pedlars will be enhanced rather than endangered.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend has got the line that is being promoted by the promoters of the Bill. However, if we look at the contents of the Bill, we see that they are totally incompatible with the preservation of individual pedlars' rights as they now stand. The proponents of the Bills are seeking to limit the rights of individual pedlars, so that they will only be able to go from house to house and from door to door. They will no longer be permitted to be pedlars in the streets as they are under the present law. On the basis that unlawful, rogue street trading is taking place at the moment, the Bills seek to penalise the lawful pedlar and take away the rights that he has had since legislation was introduced in 1871.

Michael Ancram: I have to confess that I am not a great expert on this subject. However, I have had a representation from a constituent who tells me that part of the problem is that there is insufficient evidence to take a view on these Bills one way or another. Research is being carried out by Durham university, and an interim report—which has not been released—has been submitted to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. A further, full report will be submitted to the Department in November and released some time later. Is it not extraordinary that this legislation is going through before that research and information has been made available to the House?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that if he stays a little longer to listen to the debate, the ignorance to which he has confessed will be remedied. There is a valuable learning experience in store for him. He is always slightly self-effacing about his knowledge and abilities, but he has hit the nail on the head in identifying a weakness in the promoters' case: that the research project led by Durham university—which the Minister, whom I am delighted to see in his place, announced on Second Reading—has taken evidence and produced an interim report.

Ann Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the best research is practical? Some three years ago, Maidstone took measures of a very similar nature to these, and they have been a resounding success from all points of view. Is not that rather more telling than academic research, which might inform my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), but which will be nothing like as conclusive as practical results?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend will know that there has been an opportunity for councils such as Maidstone to feed in evidence to the Durham university research project, where it can be balanced against any other evidence that there might be. Of course, what concerns me about my right hon. Friend's stance is that, contrary to the stance that she and I jointly adopted in last night's debate on climate change, when we expressed concern about unilateral action, she is now promoting the case for one or two councils to take unilateral action instead of a multilateral approach.

Ann Widdecombe: rose—

Christopher Chope: I give way once more to my right hon. Friend.

Ann Widdecombe: I am very grateful. However, my hon. Friend's comparison with last night does not stand up at all. Last night, of course, we were talking about the idea of being the pioneers of that crazy action. What I am saying to my hon. Friend now, however, is that we have previous examples—in Maidstone and other councils—so the action is not unilateral, but follows something that is well established.

Christopher Chope: It may well have been established by Maidstone council, but my right hon. Friend will know from having looked at the detail of the six Bills before us that they vary in significant ways from many of the measures in the Maidstone legislation that is now on the statute book. One consequence of this piecemeal legislation is that problems that may have been evident in a particular locality are then transferred to another. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made that point from the Front Bench on Second Reading, arguing that there was a strong case for looking at this issue on a national rather than a local basis.

John Butterfill: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) may remember that a Select Committee was set up in the other place to look into this matter. Is the research likely to be carried out by Durham university superior to that of a House of Lords Select Committee? The argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is now making—that it would be much better to have a blanket Bill covering all pedlars—was quite rightly rejected by Lord Bach, the Minister in the other place, who said that because of the dissimilarities between one borough and another, it was much more appropriate to bring forward individual Bills. He said that the Government had no intention of bringing forward a portmanteau Bill of the type that my hon. Friend is suggesting.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is articulating a different point of view from the one articulated in June by our hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and many other Members. As for whether the Durham university report represents good value for taxpayers' money, only time will tell, when we see its contents. All I can say is that I believe we should wait to see what it says. I would have liked to be able to see it today. I tabled a written question last week and received a holding reply from the relevant Minister on Thursday. Yesterday, I received a substantive answer, saying that although the interim report from Durham was already in the hands of the Minister and his officials, it could not be disclosed, and that the full report could be expected before the end of the year. It said that the report would not be available to the general public until the Minister had had a chance to look at it himself and take a view on its contents.

Tobias Ellwood: I have learned much about pedlars from my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour, who is aware of the interim stage of the Durham report. If he were to agree to Second Reading, he could apply to sit in Committee to examine these matters in more detail. By that time, the report would be complete in all its fullness, and my hon. Friend would have had the opportunity to study the detail.

Christopher Chope: Obviously, I will read the detail of the report if and when it becomes available. I do not know what will be the position of these Bills in Committee, but I very much hope that their promoters will hold back until we have the evidence from Durham university, as local taxpayers' money is at stake. If as a result of the Durham university report the Government decided that national legislation were appropriate, a great deal of money could be saved for private taxpayers through rates and council taxes. The Government might even be able to legislate on the framework basis for which the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has campaigned, but we must wait and see what results from the report.

Martin Salter: May I return to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)? As the hon. Gentleman will know, other councils—Medway, Newcastle upon Tyne, Westminster, Leicester and Liverpool—have promoted similar measures, which I understand have worked well in those areas. Is he aware of any problems resulting from private Bills such as the ones that Reading and other councils are seeking to put on the statute book?

Christopher Chope: Actually, I am. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, as a result of the publicity engendered by this legislation in the pedlar community, I have been the recipient of a fair number of representations. I shall say more about those representations later, in the context of the specific Bills that we are discussing, but in the meantime I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have received strong representations about what has been going on in Leicester. Considerable concern has been caused by the fact that although Leicester city council's Bill was passed on the basis that its provisions would operate only in a limited part of the city, there is now a proposal to extend them throughout the city, to the detriment of people who have traditionally engaged in lawful peddling there.
	The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the Bills that have been passed so far have not been a complete success by any means, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Bills we are discussing today seek to go further than those that have already reached the statute book. There is, for example, the extension of legislation to the use of services—and Reading, the hon. Gentleman's local authority, is trying to deal with the issue of touting. Although touting is not covered by all six of these Bills, it is certainly an issue in the Reading Borough Council Bill and, if I recall correctly, also in the Canterbury City Council Bill.

Michael Ancram: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying, and my learning curve is becoming steeper all the time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) challenged me as to whether I believed that Durham university's research was better than that of the House of Lords. I cannot answer the question until I have seen the results of the research, but what I do know, as a simple lawyer, is that when people argue on a subjective basis on behalf of particular local interests, it is better for those who, like me, are not involved in those direct arguments to see all the evidence—and that includes the Durham university evidence—before reaching a judgment. I suspect that most Members are in the same position.

Christopher Chope: What my right hon. and learned Friend says is plain common sense, which I hope meets with the consent of almost everyone.

Greg Mulholland: May I give a practical example? Has the hon. Gentleman considered the effect on local charitable events? Every year the wonderful Otley Victorian fayre is held in my constituency—this year it will take place on Friday 12 December—and every year there is an absolute menace from unlicensed traders selling things in the street. The council can do nothing, the police can do nothing and the organisers can do nothing, to everyone's great frustration. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if the organisers want it, if local charities want it, if the local police want it and if—in this instance—Leeds city council wants it, he should not stand in the way of those who wish to improve an event and give councils powers to regulate activity of that kind?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension if he thinks that I am standing in the way of anything. What I am trying to do is ensure that we have a rational debate. I do not know the extent of the hon. Gentleman's reading on the subject, but if he reads a bit more he will find that some of the local authorities that are campaigning for the measures in the Bills and asking for a wider application of legislative measures would regard certain charitable activities as themselves offensive and in need of further regulation. In due course, I may be able to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to specific evidence with which I can support that proposition. Therefore, let him not think that charities are at present the victim of the pedlar, and that they can only benefit from the activities of these councils if the Bills are enacted. The councils' agenda is to reduce some of the charitable activities.
	In our previous debate, almost all the talk was to do with equating pedlars with rogue traders. After dealing with the Durham issue, I shall try to rebalance that by giving an example of a genuine pedlar who is doing great work in raising money for charity, which, if these Bills were implemented, he would no longer be able to do.

Peter Bone: I have to say that in my Northamptonshire constituency there is not a flood of people saying, "We must have legislation on pedlars." However, I have listened to what Members have said, and if this is a national issue it should not be addressed in piecemeal fashion, but should be dealt with by the Government through national legislation. We are in an extraordinary position today.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	I was about to share with the House the avowed purpose of the Durham university research. When we last debated this matter, I asked the Minister to publish the terms of reference for the research, which he kindly did. It included the following:
	"The purpose of the research is to gather qualitative and quantitative evidence on how the current street trading and Pedlars' laws are currently working.
	Recent local authority and private Members' Bills have suggested that some local authorities may need greater powers to enforce street licensing and to restrict the activities of pedlars. However BERR wants to gather information about the level of issues nationally and views from key interested parties eg local authorities, street traders, pedlars etc before it reaches a decision on whether to amend existing legislation or introduce new national legislation."

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for educating me and other Members on this subject. It seems to me that there are two issues: whether those pedlars are a menace, and if so, whether that should be dealt with in this way. May I refer back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland), whose constituency borders mine? Does my hon. Friend agree that even if the pedlars are a menace, if action were taken on a Leeds city council basis, the upshot might well be to cause a problem in my constituency, so even if they are a menace, it might be in my best interests not to support the proposed legislation?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is on to a very good point. Indeed, I have made it in relation to my Christchurch constituency. If the Bournemouth Bill were to pass into law, if there were an issue to do with rogue trading and peddling in Bournemouth—which is hotly disputed—that activity might well transfer either to the ancient borough and market town of Christchurch, or to Wimborne, or to Poole. That is why we should, as the Minister seems to have accepted, take the opportunity to look at this on a national basis and see whether we need to make any changes within a national legislative framework.
	The Department commissioned St. Chad's college, Durham university to conduct the research, and the terms of reference stated:
	"This should be complete this autumn."
	I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will be pleased to learn that it also stated that the research would include
	"contacting all England, Wales and Scotland local authorities and trading standards as appropriate"—
	not Northern Ireland—
	"contacting street trader representative organisations and sample groups of street traders; contacting pedlar representative groups and sample groups of pedlars; contacting the police to establish numbers of pedlars certificates, costs involved in issue and problems with enforcement including knowledge of existing legislation; gathering statistics across all these organisations and from any other source, that cover complaints, enforcement activity and costs of this, numbers of certificates and licences issued and revoked with related costs and court cases and costs. Number of prosecutions of traders in the street for selling counterfeit goods and/or dangerous goods and whether they involved licensed street traders, non-licensed trading in the street, holders of pedlars certificates or people without pedlars certificates."
	I congratulate the Minister on having developed such a broad, and, I think, highly relevant and pertinent, scope for that research project. The disappointment is that we do not have any of the outcome of that research available today to inform the debate.
	In June, the Minister said that the university project would
	"consider the current position, whether the existing powers are sufficient...and what—if any—different powers would be useful to the tackling of problems relating to street trading in our towns and cities."
	He promised:
	"Should the evidence...demonstrate that there is a case for national legislation, we"—
	the Department—
	"will assess the options available to us."—[ Official Report, 12 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 540.]

Peter Bone: I understand entirely my hon. Friend's point that we do not have up-to-date information, but we do have some information provided by the Government on the number of prosecutions under the Pedlars Act 1871. One would think that, if there were a problem, those prosecutions would be increasing. In fact, the high point was in 2004, when there were 107 prosecutions. The number fell in 2005 and fell again in 2006, to 74. That does not indicate that there is a growing problem.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those figures. Indeed, earlier today I was engaged in an interview for the regional BBC news, and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) was also present. He will bear witness to the fact that he asked the interviewer—not on camera—about the outcome of the investigation that the camera people had done down in Bournemouth, where they had gone to film pedlars in action. The interviewer had to admit that they could not find any pedlars, so they did not have anything to film. That may indicate that there is a certain exaggeration of the problem.

Tobias Ellwood: I am pleased that my hon. Friend finds the debate humorous. The problem is costing Bournemouth borough council tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds to get the Bill through. It is a serious piece of legislation, and if the problem were trivial or there were no problem, the council would not be trying to push it through. Nor would places such as Winchester, Southampton, Portsmouth and London have bothered to secure such legislation already. I think that he supports the idea that there should be national legislation to empower local councils, and I do not understand why he is so adamant about hindering Bournemouth's ability to do something about a local matter in the interim.

Christopher Chope: I tried to make my case clear to my hon. Friend in the interventions during the previous debate, but I shall make my Bournemouth-specific points when we discuss the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill in particular. At the moment, I wish to deal with the more general issues that relate to all six Bills.
	When we talked in the previous debate about seeing whether we needed national legislation, the Minister kindly said that he would organise that research. He was working with the grain of the mood of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) argued from the Opposition Front Bench in favour of national legislation to deal with the problem. He said that if we dealt with it one council at a time,
	"we could be merely transporting the problem to a neighbouring council."
	The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), who spoke to support the Manchester City Council Bill, said:
	"The most sensible way forward is to have a national framework."—[ Official Report, 12 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 524.]
	That was supported from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), as well as by my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I believe that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, whom I am pleased to see in his place, also supports the case for a national framework. So, in setting up this research project and asking for the work to be done by Durham university, the Minister was responding to a strong request.

Tony Lloyd: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 24.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Question accordingly put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 11.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read a Second t ime and committed.

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Tobias Ellwood: I congratulate Members from the Manchester area on their success. I hope it gives an indication of the mood of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I seek your advice about whether there is some way to curtail the other debates so that we can vote on the proceedings and ensure that the Bill makes it through to Committee where we can scrutinise it further.
	We had an open and frank debate in June, and further debate today, on the Manchester City Council Bill, so there is not much more to say. Like the other areas that are seeking legislative change, we have a dilemma in Bournemouth relating to the clash between the Pedlars Act 1871 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The problem is that, although a pedlar can carry on his work for £12.50 a year, a street trader has to pay £25 a day. The problem will not be resolved by any Government in the near future. I seek the House's support for the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Tobias Ellwood: I will not give way, at least not until I have finished my point. I hope that the House will support the Bill until all-encompassing legislation is introduced to empower any council in the country to follow the path that Bournemouth borough council and Manchester city council are taking.

Peter Bone: rose—

Tobias Ellwood: I will give way once.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity, but is he not making a case for national legislation? He has not said why Bournemouth needs a different Bill from Manchester. Should we not have national legislation, rather than piecemeal Bills, unless there are particular issues that apply to Bournemouth?

Tobias Ellwood: I urge my hon. Friend to read the  Hansard of the debate in June 2008. He will then understand why the areas concerned require such legislation. There is no national legislation on the issue, and I agree that there must be, but it will not be forthcoming in the next few months, or possibly years. Meanwhile, it is costing Bournemouth and the other areas concerned huge sums of money to try to tackle the issue.

John Butterfill: rose—

Tobias Ellwood: I give way to my hon. Friend and neighbour.

John Butterfill: My hon. Friend is aware, of course, that when the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill was debated in the House of Lords, Lord Bach, speaking for the Government, said that he was not prepared to bring in national legislation. He said:
	"these are essentially local matters for local authorities to tackle as and when necessary...They can deal with issues causing significant harm or concern independently of what other local authorities may do."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 2007; Vol. 696, c. 1399.]
	The Government have made it quite clear that they are not prepared to bring in national legislation; that is why we are forced to introduce legislation for individual areas.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and explains exactly why we are here today. Perhaps he can indicate, from a sedentary position, whether he wishes to speak on the Bill.

John Butterfill: indicated assent.

Tobias Ellwood: In that case, I will not call for a Division immediately.

John Butterfill: I shall be brief, because all the general arguments about pedlars have been made, and it would be wrong to reiterate them, but there are one or two special circumstances in Bournemouth. The first concerns the lay-out of our town centre. The main shopping areas are divided by a parkland area. Licensed street traders work together in that area, and that bridges the gap between the two halves of Bournemouth. Unfortunately, the activities of some of the pedlars have caused obstruction. Some pedlars sell identical goods to licensed traders immediately outside those traders' premises. One pedlar sells balloons in the doorway of a shop selling balloons. Pedlars are supposed to keep moving under the Pedlars Act 1871. They are not supposed to block shop doorways, selling shoddier competitive goods. That is what is happening in Bournemouth. If one asks why our police cannot deal with the issue, I can only reply that Bournemouth police say that they
	"are unable to take effective action due to the prohibitively expensive and lengthy process of monitoring traders over a long period to secure a prosecution."
	That is why action is not taken, according to the police.

Peter Bone: I think that my hon. Friend's argument is about enforcement, not legislation. In the previous debate, we heard that there have been prosecutions. I suggest that the problem is more a fault of the police. It is unacceptable, under existing law, for a pedlar to be permanently placed outside a shop. The police should take action.

John Butterfill: That would be fine if we had unlimited policemen who were able to devote all their time to monitoring pedlars, but pedlars are itinerant. We would have to watch them to ensure that they were moving on as they should. That would require a long period of monitoring at a time when the police are busy stopping pickpockets and making sure that traffic can move. It is just not practical to devote scarce police resources to such activity.

Christopher Chope: Can my hon. Friend explain how Bournemouth is proposing to implement the undertaking given in the House of Lords about recognising the need to treat with a light touch the role of legitimate pedlars?

John Butterfill: Yes, I certainly can. If pedlars behave as the Act that governs them demands, they will not have any problems at all.

Christopher Chope: That was a very succinct response to an important question that I put on behalf of pedlars in general and pedlars operating in the Bournemouth vicinity in particular. An undertaking was given in the other place that a light touch would be used in dealing with the genuine pedlar. The Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, however, seeks to put all peddling in Bournemouth—other than that involved in house-to-house work—on an illegal basis. It would mean that anybody, notwithstanding their traditional pedlar's licence, who wished to trade on the street could do so only if they also had a supplementary street trading licence from Bournemouth borough council.

John Butterfill: My hon. Friend will know that the original Act envisages that pedlars would walk, carrying their wares, from house to house. It does not envisage them setting themselves up as street traders.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is engaged in a circular argument. Of course, the whole essence of the issue is that a pedlar is not a street trader but one who walks from place to place and town to town with his goods on his person. Those goods will often comprise such things as balloons, yo-yos and key rings. I have received representations from Frankie Fernando, for example. He is successful in peddling key rings, as a result of which he has raised considerable sums for charity. During the recession of the late 1980s, he had three shops in London that went bust; since then, he has pulled himself up, got on his bike—to use that expression—and become a pedlar in both senses of the word. He has gone from town to town and built up a successful business. The Bill will prevent Mr. Fernando from being able to come to Bournemouth to offer his services to the people and tourists there, notwithstanding the fact that he has operated as a perfectly lawful pedlar for the best part of 20 years. It is unconscionable that my hon. Friend should support a Bill that would outlaw that type of lawful enterprise.

Greg Knight: An earlier intervention stated that the need for the Bill was shown by the fact that Bournemouth borough council wants it and that it was spending money on it. Does my hon. Friend not accept that that argument has almost no merit? Local authorities can always pass on the cost of what they have spent to their council tax payers. Secondly, do not all local authorities have a vested interest in clamping down on pedlars if they can force those who were pedlars to take out an expensive street trader's licence?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is right. Nobody will want to take out a street trader's licence to sell balloons, because of the cost of such a licence in Bournemouth. According to information that I have been given by a third party under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, only two street trading licences are currently issued in Bournemouth, and they each cost £610. Mr. Fernando is not going to spend £610; even if he were able to claim such a licence, it would be totally uneconomical for him to do so.
	I return to my original question: how does Bournemouth propose to be able to preserve the role of the genuine pedlar in pursuance of the undertaking that it gave in the other place in relation to this contested private Bill? There has not been a satisfactory answer to that.

Peter Bone: In deciding my position on this Bill, I want to clarify whether it would stop a pedlar from going door to door on an estate selling his wares for just a £650 fee.

Christopher Chope: As I understand it, the Bill would not prevent a person in Bournemouth from going from door to door—

Tobias Ellwood: That is what a pedlar does.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend asserts, contrary to established case law and statute law, that that is what a pedlar does. If somebody goes from door to door, he can do so pursuant to a pedlar's certificate. A person can sell goods on the street pursuant to a pedlar's certificate providing that he complies with the terms of that certificate. There is a campaign of disinformation afoot to try to suggest that anybody who walks from place to place selling goods on the street—people come up to them and say, "Can I buy a balloon from you?", and they sell them a balloon, or "Can I buy a yo-yo?", and they sell them a yo-yo—is engaged in an activity tantamount to rogue street trading, and thereby undermining street traders and the role of legitimate shopkeepers, whereas that activity adds colour and vibrancy to our town centres, particularly those that are centred on tourism, and is perfectly lawful.
	In the light of the way in which the joint promoters of these Bills closed down debate on the generality, I am concerned that their agenda is one of trying to be aggressive towards those who want to try to reach a compromise. As I said in the debate in June, I went to see Bournemouth borough council officials and councillors back in January to try to find a compromise that would offer a way through this. I waited for some months before I got a response. I inquired whether it might be possible to limit the scope of the Bill in some way—for example, by saying that it should apply to only a small part of Bournemouth, namely the centre. I then suggested that it could impose a much clearer restriction on a pedlar's right to sell goods if they had any wheeled vehicle with them. I made a whole series of different compromise suggestions.
	The response that eventually came back, once I had prompted it from the acting borough council solicitor, was that the trouble with such a compromise was that it would cut across the common ground of all the other Bills, which are being promoted by one group of agents. In fact, however, the individual terms of these Bills are distinct. The Bournemouth Borough Council Bill has different elements from the Reading Borough Council Bill, which we will discuss later.
	I find it depressing that, despite my best efforts to reach a compromise on the matter, the promoters of the Bill have been stonewalling. They think that might is right and that they can use their majority in the House to force the measure through. If that is going to happen, and there is going to be a similar reluctance to accept amendments when we get to Committee, or in a line-by-line debate on Report, that will be a great disservice to the people of Bournemouth and the wider community and will bring the House into disrepute.
	People outside expect us to sort out such issues in an amicable, common-sense way. In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) raised a question about what happens if the matter is displaced from Bournemouth to Wimborne. Wimborne is covered by East Dorset district council, which also covers part of my constituency. What will happen to the area covered by Christchurch borough council? Christchurch is a much more ancient borough than Bournemouth, and has a status as a market town. It has a long-established market, and it is the second or third smallest borough in the country. If there is a big problem in Bournemouth, which is hotly in dispute, the question that the promoters of the Bill have failed to address is what will happen to smaller communities outside Bournemouth if the problem is transferred. A council such as Christchurch—a town with some 40,000 citizens—is in an even weaker position to start promoting a private Bill than Bournemouth council, which is a unitary authority, and has a population of more than 200,000.

Greg Knight: I am not sure that I understand where my hon. Friend is going. Is he saying that the Bill is unnecessary because there is not a problem in Bournemouth, and that he therefore does not think that any legislation of this sort is necessary, or that he is against the legislation because there is a concern that the Bill will push the problem elsewhere, and that he favours national legislation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there should be recognition of the fact that if individual Members feel in some difficulty on some of these matters, so does the Chair. It was determined at the start of the debate in June that there was sufficient similarity—if not identity, in certain cases—between the Bills for them to be taken together in debate. For good or ill, that debate has been determined, and by a significant majority, the House has approved the Second Reading of one of the Bills.
	Many of the points that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is making, as he goes into more detail, need to be thrashed out in Committee. The Chair gave a ruling at the start of today's proceedings that because we have conducted the generalised debate on the first Bill, it would not be right to raise more detailed issues—the generality of the principle and the detail—on each successive Bill.
	The House has given an opinion, and it would probably be in accordance with the wish of the House—although I am the servant of the House in this respect—that it be respected in considering the other measures. There may be slight differences between them, but the fact that they have been put together, and that the House accepted that, means that we should not be having a hugely detailed debate on each. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will bear that in mind. Today is not the end of the process, and there will, as with all private legislation, be further opportunity for discussion between the promoters and hon. Members who have concerns.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your comments. My understanding from the earlier ruling is that we can no longer discuss the generalities because, although I was in only the early stages of a speech on the previous Bill, the House moved that it be brought to an end. I do not argue against that. However, although the Bills have similarities, their impact is a local matter. The impact of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill on the borough of Christchurch is much more significant than that of the other Bills. The same applies to the borough of Poole and the people of Wimborne in Dorset. If I am not allowed to develop that argument, or allude to what Dorset police say about the matter, the special rules that they have introduced for pedlars' certificates and the information that I obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 about the number of certificates that have been issued—

Tobias Ellwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am worried that we are beginning to redevelop some of the arguments that we heard in June. I seek your guidance, but, bearing in mind the decision on the previous measure, your suggestion that today is not the end but that there is an opportunity to debate the matter on another occasion, and for fear of going over old ground, I should like to move that the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot accept that at this stage. I was listening to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who is a distinguished member of the Chairmen's Panel and has to rule on such matters from the other side, as it were. Of course, there may be specific matters to consider, but I urge him to bear in mind the general will of the House and raise the points that he may legitimately make, which relate specifically to the Bill. I was becoming slightly worried, from interventions and some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, that, by simply tagging the word "Bournemouth" on to some of the points, we were again going over the matters that are common to all the Bills. I say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that we should respect the distinction, given the approach that has been decided to the six Bills.

Christopher Chope: I shall do my best to achieve that objective and walk the tightrope, which is a good description of what I have to do.

Peter Bone: I am struggling with the fact that Manchester, which we have just debated, is totally different from Bournemouth, and I am therefore even more concerned if the Bills are the same.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I counsel the hon. Gentleman that he is in danger of trying to broaden the debate rather more than the hon. Member for Christchurch did.

Christopher Chope: I do not want to be tempted into straying out of order, so I will not comment on my hon. Friend's point.
	I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) wanted to put the Question before responding to my points. We try to be hon. Friends, but that is as close to a hostile act as one hon. Friend can perpetrate on another. It is only reasonable that, if a neighbour—from a neighbouring constituency and a neighbouring borough—wants to ask questions, the Bill's promoter should be willing to respond to such legitimate points rather than try to curtail debate and force a closure. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will be patient and take some notes of my questions, in the way in which he will do when he is a Minister in the next Conservative Government. When hon. Members make points, the relevant Minister takes notes in preparing his reply to the debate.
	I hope that he will start taking some notes and prepare a response to this debate, because it will be followed closely by both my constituents and his.

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening carefully for the past minute, as I am sure you have. I am not at all certain that how a Minister behaves has any relation to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not strictly a point of order, as I think the right hon. Lady probably knows in her heart of hearts. However, it at least emphasises the point that I have been trying to make, which is that we must keep this debate within fairly narrow terms, now that we have moved on to the second Bill in the group. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respect that.

Christopher Chope: I am trying my level best to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but all these points of order, spurious or otherwise, are putting me off my stride.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that there is not a single hon. Member in the House who believes that for a moment.

Christopher Chope: As they say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, "Follow that." I do not know how I can follow it, but to summarise my point, I have no desire to elongate the debate. If we are to have a succinct debate, it is reasonable that when arguments are put forward, the sponsor should respond to them. Otherwise we set a rather bad example to those outside. However, whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East wants to respond is obviously a matter for him.
	To reinforce that point, let me say that quite a lot of the questions that I have submitted in writing to Bournemouth borough council have not been answered, which causes me concern. For example, I asked the council whether it could give some evidence of the problems in Bournemouth, including the number of prosecutions and the extent of those problems, but I have received no answers; I have received just assertions, rather like the assertions in the statement issued by the promoters of the Bills. When we consider the Bills we should be guided very much on an evidential basis. If Bournemouth borough council has evidence, it should be disclosed.
	This point was treated with some mirth when I raised it earlier, but the fact that a BBC television crew went down to Bournemouth to find out the extent to which pedlars were harassing the local population but could not find any pedlars is material evidence. That is something we should be considering. With my local knowledge of Bournemouth, I think that the town centre and the Square have a very different character from the rest of Bournemouth, which includes the areas around Boscombe and even the seafront towards Bournemouth, East.
	I am concerned that the Bill is unlimited in geographical scope. The intention is to impose the same restrictions upon pedlars in the outskirts of Bournemouth, which adjoin my constituency, as in the centre of Bournemouth. In so far as any evidence has been produced in support of the case against rogue traders and unlawful pedlars in Bournemouth, it has been confined to the town centre. I hope that my hon. Friend, in responding to this debate, will say why Bournemouth borough council is not prepared to limit the scope of the Bill to the town centre.

Peter Bone: It would have been easy—perhaps the information is available, but it has not come to light in the debate so far—to discover how many prosecutions there had been in Bournemouth under the Pedlars Act 1871. That would give us a guide on how serious the problem is.

Christopher Chope: I do not have that information, but I do have some information from Dorset police about the number of pedlars licences that they have issued. The information is contained in a letter dated 31 January, which was written to me under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Between 6 April 2007 and 10 January 2008, which was the latest period for which figures were available, Dorset police issued 33 pedlars' certificates and refused 15 applications and returned the fees. The police do not hold any information regarding revoked certificates.

Greg Knight: How valuable is that information? If, for example, someone obtains a pedlar's certificate in Hampshire and then goes to Bournemouth, surely he is not committing an offence. Simply to quote the Dorset figures might therefore not give a true picture.

Christopher Chope: Obviously it does not give a national picture. However, if I reinforce what I have just said with information from Dorset about how the certificates are issued there, that might give us a way forward in finding a solution to the problem. One way of separating out legitimate pedlars from rogue street traders is to ensure that we have a proper system for issuing pedlars' certificates. When someone applies for a certificate, the Dorset police ask the applicant what activity they propose to engage in. I am not sure whether that practice is followed in other parts of the country. The application form makes it quite clear that, if the proposed activity could be carried out only by using a wheeled trolley or some such apparatus, a certificate will not be issued. Neither will one be issued to a person of bad character or someone with no established address.
	One of the correspondents who has written to me on this subject has made several sensible suggestions. He thinks that, before someone can get a pedlar's certificate, they should have to establish their identity—at least the certificates issued in Dorset, and more widely, now carry photo identification—and produce their national insurance number to show that they are in this country legitimately. He suggests that they should also have to produce evidence of where they live, and that they should be registered with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs as self-employed. All those requirements would provide additional safeguards.
	It is said that those who deal with enforcement in Bournemouth find it impossible to know whether pedlars' certificates that have not been issued in Dorset are genuine. However, there would be no difficulty in determining that if there were a national register of all the certificates that have been issued. Why should there not be such a register? We have all sorts of other national databases, and the information would be available from the police. In the case of Dorset, we are not talking about very large numbers. We are not, for example, talking about identifying all the cars registered in Bournemouth. We are talking about the relatively small number of pedlars' certificates issued in Bournemouth. Indeed, in Manchester, only 206 certificates were issued in the year for which I requested figures. These are not vast numbers.
	If we had such a database, coupled with the other safeguards that I have described, it would be possible to separate the lawful pedlar from the rogue trader. It would also ensure that the holders of the certificates were of good character, as laid down in the 1871 Act and in the application form based on that legislation. That is an important safeguard. The proponents of the legislation say, "Oh, well, we cannot do anything about that; these people come along and they will lie through their teeth in order to present themselves as legitimate locally, when we think that they have forged papers and false identities and are probably"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me share my difficulty with the hon. Member. The point that he is making now could equally be made in different contexts in the sense that it is a generic point. He is relating it specifically to Bournemouth, but it could equally well be made—he may be minded to make it—in the context of the next Bill under consideration or the Bill after that. I invite him to reflect on the fact that he is making a generic point, whereas I want to steer him back much more specifically to the Bill on Bournemouth.

Christopher Chope: I accept that the point is generic, but I have made it clear that the way in which the Dorset police deal with the registration of pedlars is commendable and that if more police authorities throughout the country followed that example, they would not have the problems that Bournemouth says it has.

Greg Knight: With particular respect to Bournemouth, is my hon. Friend satisfied with how the council says it is going to implement the light-touch pledge made to the House of Lords?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend heard the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill). All I can say is that I am not satisfied with the response. About a year after the undertaking was given, I would have expected more thought to have been put into exactly how to implement it in practice. I must say that I am disappointed. It may be because my hon. Friend wanted to be succinct that he was unable to expand on the issue as much he would have liked.

John Butterfill: What I said was that if the pedlars were trading genuinely, they would not have a problem. Of course, the term "pedlar", to quote the Act, means
	"any hawker, pedlar, petty chapman...who, without any horse, or other beast bearing or drawing burden, travels and trades on foot and goes from town to town, or to other men's houses",
	but that is not what these people are doing. Frankly, many of Bournemouth's pedlars have licences from outside Bournemouth, some from as far away as Manchester, for example. I do not know whether the gentleman from London has walked down from London with his wares, but we suspect that many do not. In fact, I am told that one comes in a transit van. We are not going to accept people who are not genuine pedlars or who do not comply with the Act. That is all I am saying.

Christopher Chope: We cannot go behind the law on pedlars at the moment, which says that a pedlar's certificate can be gained from any one of the 49-odd police forces up and down the country and that a pedlar can carry out work pursuant to the licence anywhere in the country—except in the six boroughs where restrictions have been placed so far. The pedlar's certificate entitles a person to go and sell—I keep returning to my simple example—balloons, yo-yos and so forth from—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We really are getting far away from Bournemouth, so let me counsel the hon. Member once more. He has been on his feet for 33 minutes, and the Chair might well take a view on that.

Christopher Chope: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, who made the more general point. I accept that I was at fault in responding to it generally.
	Let me take the House back to the specific provisions in the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, which differ from those in other Bills, and see whether I can elicit a response from my hon. Friends. Under clause 6, community support officers are not allowed to seize goods, which contrasts with the Bill on Reading, for example, and I see my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) in his place. Why is that?

Tobias Ellwood: Why does it matter?

Christopher Chope: I think that it matters because we are debating the merits of this Bill. I should have thought that if this Bill's proponents were concerned about enforcement, they would wish to include community support officers in that role.

Tobias Ellwood: rose—

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has taken an interest in this point. I will give way to him if he can tell me why it does not matter.

Tobias Ellwood: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is now dictating what is right or wrong for Bournemouth. Bournemouth borough council tabled the Bill because it believes that it is the correct Bill for Bournemouth—not for Reading, but for Bournemouth. If it feels that it can implement the Act that the Bill will become using only police officers, rather than community support officers, who are we to argue with that?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend seems to think that any words of wisdom that come from his borough council are not to be challenged in any way. All I can say is that his attitude is very different from mine.

Robert Wilson: My hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way. I may be able to answer his question. Government legislation to be introduced in 2010 will allow fixed penalty fines to be issued, and I should have thought that PCSOs would be able to issue them. There is a difference between the two authorities over the way in which the fines are used and who is able to issue them.

Tobias Ellwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have had to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) three times. I appreciate that I have already tried once to ask that the Question be put, but I seek your indulgence now. I feel that we have debated this matter enough, and are going around in circles. I wish to ask for the Question to be put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to accept such a motion at this stage, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my mind is not closed to accepting it at some point. I am leaning over backwards to ensure that the arguments are presented, but I realise that an attempt is being made to stretch well beyond the bounds of the understanding that I thought had been established both in the ruling that I made in June and in the refined ruling made today.

Christopher Chope: I shall go through the clauses very quickly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Peter Bone: rose—

Christopher Chope: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me on a specific point before he moves on.
	I understand that the problem in Bournemouth is enforcement, or lack of it, by Dorset police. Given the lack of police effort, it is surely not surprising that Bournemouth has not extended the powers of PCSOs.

Christopher Chope: I have no answer to that, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East has.
	If Bournemouth is to have this Bill, and it has only one opportunity to propose it, why does clause 6 contain no power to seize perishable items, which are often regarded as the big problem? Again, that contrasts with the provisions of the Reading Bill. Why does clause 7 of the Bournemouth Bill allow forfeiture and disposal of goods even when that has not been ordered by a court, if the costs of storage, removal and return are not paid within 28 days? I raise the question of reasonableness because the provision is not included in, for example, the Reading Bill. Why is that so?
	Clause 10 of the Bournemouth Bill limits the power to impose fixed penalty notices to council officers; it does not extend that power to police or community support officers. Again, why is that so? Many hon. Members think that if there is to be enforcement of the criminal law, we should in the first instance rely on the police and police community support officers for that, rather than council officials. Why is such a power in the Bill?
	Also, why—unlike in other Bills before the House this afternoon—is there provision in clauses 14(6) and (7) for a statement purporting to be signed by the chief finance officer to be final evidence that payment of a fixed penalty notice was not received by the council, even if a fixed penalty notice had been sent? The significance of that is that payment of a fixed penalty notice is linked in with the return of the goods that would otherwise be forfeited, and it seems that the provisions of subsections (6) and (7) go further than the provisions in the other Bills before us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that he is now talking about matters of detail that would be thoroughly examined in Committee, and that they are not appropriate to a Second Reading debate, and certainly not to a Second Reading debate in today's circumstances.

Christopher Chope: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope they will be dealt with in Committee. It is traditional on Second Reading for Members to draw attention to certain points and to put down markers. That is what I am trying to do, in order to be helpful to the promoters of the Bill by giving them advance warning of some of the concerns that I and others have about its provisions.
	I also ask my hon. Friends why this Bill extends to the sale of services, because other local authority legislation does not do so. Why does this Bill allow councils to hold goods for 56 days, compared with 28 days? That is twice the limit set in existing private legislation, including in the Maidstone Borough Council Act 2006 referred to earlier.

John Butterfill: Under the Pedlars Act, a pedlar is not permitted to sell services, so it is appropriate to say that anyone who is selling services, rather than goods, should not be entitled to trade as a pedlar.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is inadvertently drawing the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) into a wider sphere of discussion. I am trying to make the debate specific, and I remind the hon. Member for Christchurch that the Bill we are currently debating on Second Reading is identical to the one that we have already given a Second Reading to.

Christopher Chope: I have not gone through the Manchester and Bournemouth Bills line by line to see whether they are identical. All I have been trying to do is identify some of the differences between the Bournemouth Bill and some of the others, such as the Reading Bill. I am trying to draw attention to the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought we had established that the generalised debate that began in June was intended to give Members an opportunity to put down markers on Bills, most of which were identical and all of which were substantially similar. That was the opportunity, and it was said by the Chair at the start of today's debate that we would not be seeking to hang a generalised debate on the specific Bills that followed after the House had decided to give a Second Reading, following the generalised debate, to the first of the Bills. I have been trying to maintain that distinction, and I think the House might wish to make progress.

Christopher Chope: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am keen to make progress, and I have tried my hardest. I must say that the atmosphere being created by the mirthful comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East is not exactly helping.

Gareth Thomas: In a similar spirit of helpfulness, may I use this opportunity to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Government do not have a view on the Bill? The specific role of the Government is to confirm that the Bill's promoters have undertaken a full assessment of its compatibility with the European convention on human rights and that we do not see a need to dispute their conclusions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to use this intervention to confirm that that is the Government's view.

Christopher Chope: Obviously, the Minister has used the intervention as an opportunity to put that on the record. I think that it has already been put on the record, in the debate in June, and that it applied to all the Bills.
	I do not want to spoil the opportunity of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East to respond to the debate, because the points that I have raised about the Bill deserve a response. I particularly hope that he will comment on the differences that I have identified between the Bournemouth Bill and some of the others. I kept back my observations about the specificity of particular points in the Bournemouth Bill compared with some of the other Bills, because I thought that it would be more appropriate to address them during the specific debate on Bournemouth than in the general debate.

John Battle: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 15.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Question accordingly  put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 14.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read a Second time and committed.

Canterbury City Council Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Julian Brazier: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some months ago, we had extensive argument about the measure, so I shall say only that it is supported by all political parties in Canterbury and by local people and the local media.
	The problem is that large amounts of police and council time are required to enforce the existing legislation, so in practice our 18 legitimate street traders are—

Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julian Brazier: I will not give way.
	Our 18 legitimate street traders, who have paid for their licences—

Peter Bone: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julian Brazier: No.
	Those street traders face unfair competition from people from all over the country who have not paid for street trading licences but in practice are acting as street traders and not as pedlars. I urge the House to support the measure.

Peter Bone: I did not expect to detain the House by making a speech, but the introduction to the Bill was so short that I did not have the chance to put the point I wanted to make.
	We hear yet again that the Bill is slightly different from the previous Bills we have discussed. The argument in the short introduction appeared to be that an enormous amount of police time was being used to enforce the existing rules. Can my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) or another Member explain why enforcing a new Act will not require exactly the same amount of effort?
	The argument is different from—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been attending debates on these proceedings long enough to realise that that is a generalised point. I have tried more than once to emphasise the distinction that the Chair has tried to make to assist the House, and which I understood the House had accepted all along. To overturn it at this stage would probably be against the wishes of the House, judging by the majorities that have been recorded.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for straying. I was trying to make a specific point relating to the Bill, as there seemed to be a different argument, and the introduction was so brief that the position was not clear to me.

Philip Davies: I shall make merely two points that are specific to Canterbury. The first is that the Bill, as I understand it, is intended to protect genuine shopkeepers selling their wares in Canterbury. In my previous career, working for Asda, I had cause to visit our store in Canterbury on many occasions—indeed, I was responsible for marketing it when it had a revamp about five or six years ago—and the House may or may not want to bear in mind the fact that I was never aware of any complaints about pedlars impinging on their business either from the manager at the Canterbury store, or anybody I came across in other shops in the locality.
	My second point specific to Canterbury is that the Bill states that Canterbury council wants to regulate touting. Such a provision is not in the other Bills we have discussed thus far, but is something that Canterbury has decided to indulge in.
	The Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I am a member, recently held an inquiry into ticket touting. I am not entirely sure why a local authority would wish unilaterally to take up the role of regulating ticket touting. As the Select Committee and the Government have made clear, it is a perfectly legitimate business.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The short answer is that, borough for borough, Canterbury is the busiest tourist centre in the entire country, in terms of numbers of visits per capita of local population. The truth is that we have problems with people touting for nightclubs, and with a variety of other activities. The problem is sometimes concentrated outside the cathedral, or in other places where people gather. That is why the council sought the introduction of the measure that we are discussing.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I know that he is a great champion of his constituency, and he knows his local area better than I do—indeed, better than anybody else in the House. I certainly do not dispute his point. My point is that the provision seriously strays from those in the other Bills. If Canterbury decides to regulate touting, that will drive a coach and horses through the whole secondary ticketing market. Our Select Committee decided to hold an inquiry into the subject, and it found that it was a legitimate market. I repeat that the Government, too, found that it was a legitimate market.
	It is one thing for people to sell their wares on the street, or to sell balloons outside shops, as we have heard, but tickets are quite another thing. If somebody buys a ticket to an event, it is theirs and they can do what they will with it. If they wish to sell it on to somebody else, so that that person can visit the attraction in question—the cathedral, in the case of Canterbury—that is a matter for them. I do not understand why Canterbury needs to interfere in the secondary ticket market; that seems to be a million miles away from the purpose of the other measures in the Bill.
	I do not know about the issues relating to Canterbury cathedral, but if somebody buys a ticket to go to the cathedral, decides at the last minute, quite legitimately, that they cannot go, and sells the ticket on to somebody else, I do not see what business it is of the local council, or of the House for that matter. That is a completely different issue from that of pedlars. Many people, including tourists, may perfectly legitimately have bought a ticket to an event that they can no longer attend. Why on earth should they lose out because Canterbury city council has decided of its own volition that it will start sticking its nose into the secondary ticket market? I do not see the purpose of including that element in the Bill, whatever the merits of the provisions relating to peddling in Canterbury. I do not know whether they are a good or a bad thing; I am happy to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on that subject. However, it is a totally different matter when we start interfering in ticket-touting.

Peter Bone: I went to Canterbury this year for a short holiday, and I have to say that I was not aware of a huge amount of ticket touting near the cathedral. It seems that a measure has been slipped into the Bill that makes it much more significant than the other Bills that we have discussed.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend may be right, and in that sense, the measure may well be a solution looking for a problem.

John Bercow: It is always a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend's mellifluous tones. Tourism in Canterbury among hon. Members is obviously a growing concern, because, following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) said, my wife and I have been to Canterbury to stay in a hotel on three occasions in the past 18 months. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that I have not encountered anybody seeking to sell me a ticket, in a primary or a secondary capacity.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having pointed that out. He is a great champion of the free market, and I am sure that he would not want to see any restriction on people buying and selling tickets if they wish to do so. If my hon. Friend did not encounter a problem, that reiterates the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who said that the Bill is a solution looking for a problem.
	I have great admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, but I have to tell him that I found his explanation of why the legislation was required specifically for Canterbury rather unconvincing. He was talking about people having tickets for nightclubs—

Ann Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Philip Davies: Of course.

Ann Widdecombe: Can my hon. Friend enlighten me: how many times has he been to Canterbury?

Philip Davies: I would not like to answer that, given that I might well mislead the House if I gave a specific number. As I said earlier, I used to visit the Canterbury store regularly when I worked for Asda. I would say that I have visited the city on at least half a dozen to a dozen occasions— [Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend allow me to make the point?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said that people are buying tickets for nightclubs and for the cathedral. Lots of people may well buy tickets for nightclubs and for the cathedral in Canterbury; I do not doubt that for a minute. My point is that that applies to virtually every city in the country, particularly those with tourist attractions. I would venture to say that places with large sporting venues would be much more susceptible to ticket touting than Canterbury ever would be. I would have thought that Canterbury was one of the last places in the country that would want to interfere by regulating the secondary ticketing market.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the promoters' statement in support of the Second Reading of these six Bills makes no mention whatever that any of the Bills contain proposals to regulate touting? Does he not think that a serious omission?

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out; I was not aware of that, as I have only recently become aware of this aspect of the Bill. It would be rather unfortunate if the House supported a Bill that specifically included the regulation of the secondary ticketing market, given that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I serve and which conducted a thorough inquiry into the issue, found that the secondary ticketing market was perfectly legitimate. Furthermore, the Office of Fair Trading has ruled that that is the case, and in answers to questions in the House the Government themselves have acknowledged that. We would be going down a slippery slope if Canterbury council decided that it would be the one council in the country to regulate the industry.

Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As far as I can determine, there is no reference anywhere in the Bill to secondary ticketing, although I have sat listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) talking about that for some time. The Bill refers to touting for business, which is quite different.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, but a point of argument. I have listened to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and am wondering how far he will stretch his point. He has had a good outing so far and I hope that he will accept that he has made his point.

Philip Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall bear your wise words in mind and make sure that I do not stretch—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that you will do more than that.

Philip Davies: Indeed; I will fully abide by your wise words, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. All I will say is that the Bill is clearly badly drafted because it makes what touting is rather ambiguous. It would be foolish of us to vote on something when it appeared that we did not even know what we were voting about.

Peter Bone: Does my hon. Friend agree that there may be a hidden issue that we have not discussed? He suggested that the Bill might be more appropriate in respect of large sporting arenas. If there were an international cricket match in Canterbury that I could go to at the last minute, I would turn up and try to buy a ticket outside the stadium. That would be impossible under the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If that speculation were correct, I would probably find myself joining the hordes of people moving towards Canterbury, but I think that it is probably stretching the argument a little too far.

Philip Davies: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not respond to my hon. Friend's point. Given your earlier comments, I will leave my argument there.
	I hope that the House will reflect seriously on what the clause about regulating touting means in reality. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, I am not sure that I am any wiser what it means—to be honest, I am not sure that he is any wiser either—but it could have serious unintended consequences for the secondary ticketing market.

Christopher Chope: You have been waiting eagerly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for distinctive elements of the Bill to be drawn to your attention, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has done that in one material particular. However, I am not sure that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), whom I love dearly, are sufficient for the purposes of this debate.
	Clause 11 deals with the issue of touting, which is not dealt with in either of the other two Bills that we have so far considered. The extent of the proposed prohibition on touting is not trivial, because it carries with it a criminal offence and a level 3 fine on the standard scale. Subsection (2) says:
	"Any person who, in a place designated under this section importunes any person by touting for a hotel, lodging house, restaurant or other place of refreshment, for a shop, for a theatre or nightclub or other place of amusement or recreation, or for a boat or other conveyance shall be guilty of an offence".
	My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury prayed in aid the fact that Canterbury is a centre for tourism. If so, all the more reason that tourists should have the opportunity to be made aware of the services available in the city.

Greg Knight: If this provision were as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, many of us could support it, because we would all welcome a heritage site—Canterbury cathedral—being given special protection. However, clause 11 goes even wider than my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) suggests and would allow the council to ban touting in an
	"off-street car park, recreation ground, garden or other park, pleasure ground or open space",
	with no mention whatever of the cathedral.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is right. He is a very experienced scrutineer of this type of measure, and he knows as well as other Members that as soon as we have general legislation that gives very wide powers, there is, almost as night follows day, a temptation for the people who have those powers to seek to exercise them to their widest possible extent.

Julian Brazier: I may be able to help the House by explaining that there is an open space in front of the cathedral called Buttermarket, which probably has the greatest single concentration of tourists of any point in the whole of the city.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that that is very helpful.

Philip Davies: I was struck by my hon. Friend's point about Canterbury having a high level of tourism. Does he therefore agree that for Canterbury to set rules for itself that do not apply in other parts of the country would be hugely confusing for people who could inadvertently be caught out by such regulations?

Christopher Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend about that.
	On the specificity of the Bill, if my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is right—and I have no reason to doubt him—that there is a problem in one location in Canterbury, within the precincts of that great cathedral or thereabouts, I would have hoped that it would be spelt out in the Bill. Why is it not, and would my hon. Friend give an undertaking on behalf of the promoter that, should the Bill receive Second Reading and go into Committee, it will rephrase clause 11 of the Bill? The promoter should make it clear that the powers taken to deal with touting are going to be limited to dealing with the mischief to which my hon. Friend referred, rather than dealing with, in the wide terms used in the Bill, any
	"public off-street car park, recreation ground, garden or other park, pleasure ground or open space under the...control of the council"
	or
	"a street or esplanade, parade, promenade or way to which the public commonly have access, whether or not as of right."
	Does my hon. Friend agree that the provisions go unnecessarily wide to meet the mischief that apparently needs to be addressed in Canterbury? I look forward to receiving that offering from my hon. Friend.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that offer. If he chooses to draw his remarks to a reasonable close after finishing the legitimate points of his argument, and before time runs out in the House, I would be delighted to be instrumental in brokering a meeting between him and Canterbury city council to discuss a suitably felicitous amendment to the clause.

Christopher Chope: That is one of the most constructive responses received tonight by those who have been questioning particular provisions of the Bills, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I say in passing that when I practised as a barrister I frequently visited the city of Canterbury. I have not had the opportunity to visit it for some time, and I would like the opportunity to do so again.

Peter Bone: Before my hon. Friend moves on, would not one of the problems of giving a Second Reading to this Bill be that it would encourage other councils to introduce similar Bills to outlaw secondary ticketing? This is a different Bill, and if we give that signal, other councils will introduce such measures.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why it is so important that a particular issue in a particular locality should be dealt with in tightly defied terms in private legislation so that it is not taken on board by other councils and usurped by the detrimental effects to which my hon. Friend draws attention.
	In dealing with clause 11, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has responded constructively to the concerns expressed about the provisions relating to touting in this Bill that are not in the other Bills. I hope that he will be similarly helpful on my other points. His Bill is different from the other Bills because of the provisions of clause 7, which is all about the seizure of perishable items. The two previous Bills we have considered make no provision for the seizure of perishable items. Indeed, they are specifically excluded from those Bills. I hope that my hon. Friend can explain the background to the provisions because clause 7 is a major clause and it is not referred to, even en passant, in the promoter's statement.
	Were it not for the assiduous work of Members in scrutinising the Bill, many people would be unaware of the powers to seize perishable items contained within. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, a precedent could be set, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) made the same point. Clause 7 states:
	"(1) No perishable item shall be seized...unless the authorised officer...gives a document under subsection (2) to the person...
	(2) Where a perishable item is seized...the person from whom it is seized must be given a document".
	It continues:
	"The council or the police shall store any perishable item seized under section 6 at the appropriate temperature,"
	It does not specify the temperature. The clause goes on:
	"If the person from whom a perishable item was so seized fails to collect it within 48 hours of the seizure the council or the police may dispose of it."

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is not detail about temperatures more suited to the detailed discussions of later stages?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A point about, for example, temperature, is most certainly a Committee point. Second Reading is about general principles.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Normally on Second Reading, the Minister or sponsor who introduces the debate goes through the Bill's provisions. Even with the lax discipline of recent years and the breaking of several of the House's conventions, it is more customary than not for a Minister who introduces a Bill to go through its main clauses—albeit not in great detail or line by line—to explain their purport and the justification for them. It is the first time of which I know that the House has been asked to consider giving powers to a local authority to seize perishable items. Although it may be frustrating for my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that the matter is not to be dealt with immediately on the nod—I find that unfortunate in terms of democracy—I hope that we will have a chance to tackle the substance of the measure.

Gareth Thomas: rose—

Christopher Chope: I am pleased that the Minister would like to contribute to the debate.

Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to correct the impression that the Government have any responsibility for introducing the Bill or any need to explain its general principles, as he appeared to suggest? Will he also allow me to welcome the invitation of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) to discuss with those interested a possible amendment to clause 11? The Government would be interested in those discussions. Will he also allow me to put on record again our view that the Bill's promoter has undertaken a full assessment of its compatibility with the European convention on human rights, and that we perceive no need to dispute its conclusions?

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. Again, in live debate, we have an example of the importance of discussing such issues. If we were not debating them, we would not have heard that the Government obviously have concerns about clause 11 and want to be involved in discussions about it, or about the Bill's compatibility—or otherwise—with the European convention on human rights.
	However, in his initial point, the Minister misunderstood my comments. I did not say that I expected him to set out the Government's views about the Bill; I said that, normally, when Bills are introduced—the Government obviously introduce the majority—the Minister on the Treasury Bench goes through the clauses. I pointed out that no one had done that with the measure that we are discussing. I wondered whether the Minister intended to challenge my assertion that it is the first occasion on which the House has been asked to introduce a measure that would give a local authority the power to seize perishable items, but he did not do that, for which I am grateful.
	That reinforces my point that clause 7, which has 13 subsections, constitutes a significant break with tradition. The House should be concerned about that—it merits detailed scrutiny.

Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a general principle, a Bill that gives anyone power to seize someone else's goods should also provide for adequate and proper compensation? That does not appear to be the case with the Bill that we are discussing.

Christopher Chope: I think that there is indeed some provision in the Bill to deal with compensation.

Greg Knight: With respect to my hon. Friend, as I understand it compensation will be paid only if the initial seizure was not lawful, not if it was lawful but mistaken.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has taken on board. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. Part 3 of that Act contains provisions relating to civil enforcement in similar situations, which can include the forfeiture of goods, but sets out strong reservations regarding the need for compensation if the seizure of goods is mistaken or not soundly based in law.
	If somebody is deemed to be selling apples or oranges in Canterbury in breach of the relevant regulations, all their goods can be seized and will then have to be stored at the right temperature. The provisions in clause 7 go well beyond pedlars, who are dealt with in a separate clause, and deal with street trading. If people are selling hamburgers, hot dogs or ice creams, for example, and their entire stock is taken, how will it be possible under the Bill for the owner of those goods not to suffer a financial penalty? Once the food has already been cooked, my wife tells me, it should not be cooked again, particularly if it is pork or chicken. Once the food has been seized and has cooled down, will the provisions about storing it at an appropriate temperature require hot or cold storage?
	We do not need to go into those issues now, but it is important that we should flag them up, because the Bill is novel in comparison with the other Bills. The third issue— [ Interruption. ] If the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) wishes me to give way so that we can hear what he is saying in his sedentary intervention, I shall happily do so.

John Battle: I recall that when the hon. Gentleman was a councillor for Westminster, he promoted a Westminster Bill to move the pedlars halfway along Westminster bridge so that they would be stuck in Lambeth. Why has he changed his mind?

Christopher Chope: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about many things, and I am afraid that he is wrong about that. First, I was never a councillor in Westminster—I have never been rich enough to live in Westminster—I was a councillor in Wandsworth, which was the pioneering council that is often unsuccessfully imitated by Westminster. Wandsworth council has not been promoting private legislation in the House because it realises that it is much better to operate sensibly in its own—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If we have now cleared that up, perhaps we can get back on the road to Canterbury.

Christopher Chope: I am glad that I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman, so that I could clarify the matter for him.

Peter Bone: To respond to the Minister's intervention about the European convention on human rights, I did not understand whether he was referring to a blanket application to all the Bills or just to the Bill that we are discussing, which is very different, because I would have thought that outlawing secondary ticketing would indeed infringe people's human rights.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If I am party to the discussions between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury in the precincts of Canterbury cathedral, perhaps I shall be able to report back to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough on the outcome, and give him an answer to his question. That could be a few months ahead, however.
	I keep being tempted away from my next point, which is the third distinctive element in the Canterbury City Council Bill, compared with the Bills relating to Bournemouth and Manchester that we have already considered. The element that I wish to draw to the attention of the House is clause 13, which will enable council officers, constables and community support officers to serve fixed penalty notices in cases where they have reason to believe that street trading offences have been committed. This Bill will involve the police, community support officers and council officers, in contrast to the provisions in the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill.
	Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will help me on this point when he responds to the debate. Perhaps he has been called away. I was expecting him to respond to the debate, but he seems to be temporarily absent from the Chamber—[Hon. Members: "No, he's not!"]

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is quite wrong for a Member to accuse another Member, who is fully visible in the Chamber, of not being here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not quite sure to whom the right hon. Lady is alluding— [ Interruption. ] I think that the matter is now resolved.

Christopher Chope: I was wondering whether you were going to draw the curtains round your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, that will not be necessary. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury back in his place. I must correct my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald: I could not see my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury because of the very fine piece of furniture standing between us. My right hon. Friend might doubt my word on that. If so, she can come and sit on my lap and see what is visible from here—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could now return to the matters in hand.

Christopher Chope: Clause 13 deals with the vexed question of who is to issue the fixed penalty notices. When my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury responds to the debate, will he tell me whether he thinks it right that this power should be given to community support officers, police officers and council officials, rather than just to council officials, as in the provision in the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill that we discussed earlier? I believe that there is much to be said for consistency in this regard. We were unable to draw from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) the rationale behind not extending this power to police and community support officers in Bournemouth. I wonder, knowing that Kent has quite an imaginative, forward-looking council, whether it might take a different approach, which might commend itself to the House. I would be interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury on that particular distinctive point.

Julian Brazier: That, of course, is something that we could discuss in Committee.

Christopher Chope: I look forward to having that opportunity. However, I was hoping that my hon. Friend would give his views to a wider audience now, so that the Bills that do not contain such a provision might be amended in their own Committee stages to include one—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with the Canterbury City Council Bill, not with any other Bills. I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman did not stray into matters that the House has already agreed are for the Committee stage.

Christopher Chope: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Greg Knight: This specific Bill makes provision—rather oddly, in my view—for varying the level of fixed penalty depending on where in the city of Canterbury the offence took place. Has my hon. Friend received any information from the promoters as to why they feel that that is desirable? I ask him because my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) did not cover the point in his very short introduction.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend has got on to a point that I have to admit I had not spotted, so I am grateful to him for drawing it out. I do not know whether he would like to expand on it in greater detail in due course.

Greg Knight: It may help the House if I explained that I was referring to clause 14(2) on page 9, which says:
	"Different levels may be set for different areas in the city and for different cases or classes of case."
	We all understand that different cases may deserve a different fine regime, but I find it hard to understand why an identical ticketable offence should be met with a different penalty depending on what street in Canterbury one happens to be on.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is on to an extremely good point. I am not sure that the House has considered any legislation previously that has allowed the imposition of a varying penalty depending on where someone one is found to be committing an offence. Having a tiered fine system based on the location of an offence seems a very novel provision, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury can address it.
	Let me deal with one or two other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury spoke on 12 June, I believe, when we last debated the generality of the issues. He made some specific points about Canterbury. For example, he said that
	"stolen goods are often marketed in this way".
	He was referring to what pedlars were up to in Canterbury, but I wonder whether he had any evidence of that. I am hoping that he is listening to this point, so that he can respond to it. My hon. Friend made the point, as I said, that stolen goods were often marketed by what he alleged to be pedlars in Canterbury. He then went on to say that
	"some of these people have even got into drugs."—[ Official Report, 12 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 553.]
	I hope that he can expand on that. Can he give us an assurance that there is no drug pushing in Canterbury other than among pedlars, which would be very illuminating for this House, or is there an attempt to smear pedlars even with illegal drug dealing?

Peter Bone: I must interject there, because it would have been impossible for the pedlars to get the original licence if they were not of good character.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right, but one of the difficulties with the Bill is that there are a lot of assertions and generalisations, but precious little evidence. That is what worries me. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury mentioned that in the context of Canterbury, there was an elongated process of enforcement. Once again, that seems to be unique to Canterbury. He said that people were operating as pedlars without a certificate in their possession. What happens is that if they are static, they have to be given a verbal warning. Where is it in the law books, as one puts it colloquially, that somebody has to be given a verbal warning before they can be proceeded against?
	I do not dispute the fact that this is a problem in Canterbury, but is my hon. Friend saying that the remedy might be in having a rather more robust enforcement procedure, cutting out the verbal warning or the verbiage and going straight to the penalty? All of us as motorists know exactly what happens when we park a car in the wrong place, even for a short time. We are not given the luxury of a verbal warning, but it seems that offenders in Canterbury are, despite the horrendous problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury referred when he spoke about the matter so eloquently during the main Second Reading debate.
	My hon. Friend went on to say that, on a subsequent occasion—

Julian Brazier: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put,  but Mr. Deputy Speaker  withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Christopher Chope: I hope that I shall be able to finish making my point before the debate ends, and I hope that my hon. Friend, in his enthusiasm for moving a closure motion, will not lose sight of the importance of being able to listen to the debate so that he will be in a position to respond to it. He made a telling point in the main Second Reading debate, when he said there was a crisis—he described it as an horrendous crisis—in Canterbury.
	After the verbal warning, the person concerned receives not a penalty but a written warning. As my hon. Friend said on 12 June,
	"Only then can proceedings be adopted."—[ Official Report, 12 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 552.]
	Why is it only then that proceedings can be adopted?

Greg Knight: I think that my hon. Friend is being a little unfair on our hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. We live in an enlightened democracy. If someone breaks the law innocently, what is wrong with giving that person a verbal warning in the first instance?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is seeking to be fair-minded, but the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury during that Second Reading debate was that these people were proceeding with malice aforethought. They were not innocents who had haplessly done the equivalent of parking in the wrong spot. Nevertheless, given the long-winded process involved, it was not worth while to proceed against these rogue traders, for want of a better expression.
	My hon. Friend went on to say that only after the written warning could proceedings be adopted, and that the penalties were very small. Does he accept that the question of penalties is for the local magistrates court? If the magistrates want to draw attention to an exemplary issue, they have powers in their locality to say, "This kind of behaviour is such a problem that I am going to deter people by imposing a higher fine, as long as it does not exceed the maximum specified."

Greg Knight: I really do think that my hon. Friend is making heavy weather of this. Might it not be the case that Canterbury city council merely sees this as good public relations? It does not want to be seen to be throwing its weight around in the first instance, even if the law is on its side, particularly given that the person concerned may not be aware of the law.

Christopher Chope: In a sense, my right hon. Friend is filling the role that I hoped would be played by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury in explaining the background to what my hon. Friend told us during the main Second Reading debate.

Philip Davies: Might not the point made by our right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) about Canterbury being reasonable carry more weight if it had not included in the Bill all the additional powers related to seizing perishable goods and varying fines for different areas? That does not give the impression of an area that is being reasonable; it gives the impression of an area that is being more officious than other areas.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has made a good point. One cannot have it both ways, but that is what Canterbury city council seems to want to do.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury also asserted that many pedlars were operating with certificates containing false addresses, but there is no evidence of that. I will give way to my hon. Friend if he can produce any evidence that a pedlar in Canterbury has used a certificate containing a false address, and can tell us whether, if that has happened, it has resulted in that person's prosecution. Perhaps this is another of the myths being peddled by those who are against pedlars— [Laughter.] I apologise for that totally unintentional pun. There is, therefore, a difference between the Canterbury Bill and the other Bills, and I hope that in the time before—

Julian Brazier: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 12.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Question accordingly put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read a Second time and committed.

Leeds City Council Bill ( By Order)
	 — 
	Nottingham City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Reading Borough Council Bill  (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 November.

RAIL LINKS (HALIFAX-LONDON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Claire Ward.]

Linda Riordan: I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate on such an important issue for Halifax and for the people I represent. The debate is timely for a number of reasons, which include the recent report outlining the need for more capacity in services on our rail network, the need for Halifax to have a major economic and social boost, and the fact that the operator tendering for the bid, Grand Union, has identified key gaps in the rail market that can be filled, creating dozens of new jobs in west Yorkshire. Rail paths and rolling stock have been identified and full service proposals have been worked up. The plans are now at the Office of Rail Regulation. They are exciting, well-thought-out proposals that the ORR would be crazy to turn down.
	Let me provide a bit of background to the bid. The rail operator, Grand Union, has been developing plans for services from towns such as Halifax for more than two years. Initially, the plans were rejected because of a lack of capacity, but after full engagement with key rail stakeholders the capacity has been found. The major economic tests have been passed and markets identified. Major west Yorkshire towns without direct services to London would be put on the mainline map. The service proposals are exciting, viable and visionary. The rail industry should be biting off Grand Union's hand and welcoming the proposals with open arms.
	It sounds simple, so why has nothing happened yet? Well, things are never simple, especially when it comes to new rail services. Applications get tied down in a boring web of bureaucracy when flair and vision is required to realise the huge potential of the services. Someone needs to grasp the nettle and realise when something good is staring them in the face. The rail industry needs a more can-do attitude, as opposed to the cannot-do approach that seems to prevail. In fact, it seems to me that the more a company wants to run a service the harder it is for its dreams to become reality. In 2008, we should encourage new and imaginative ideas for our railways to get people off roads and on to trains, and not put up obstacle after obstacle, as seems to be happening with the proposals for Halifax and other towns in west Yorkshire such as Bradford, Brighouse and Pontefract.
	My main aim in this debate is to put forward the case that Halifax needs a direct service to London. I also want to explain why that would benefit the town socially and economically, and why the Government should encourage provincial towns to have direct routes to London. Such a link would benefit towns such as Halifax, as well as the rail network and the environment.
	Why more is not being done to allow direct rail routes from towns to our key cities baffles me. For example, it is quite illogical that it takes people in my constituency nearly an hour to travel to the connecting train that will get them to London. What is the point of thousands of people each year being forced to use their motor cars to travel 15 or 20 miles, when they would quite happily use a direct service that could be available on their doorstep?
	Why has the direct link not yet been put in place? I never supported rail privatisation and still do not. Some of the private operators, such as the First group, have done nothing to improve the lot of the passenger, but the system is in place and we need to make the best use of it. One of the few benefits of privatisation is the open-access policy that allows private operators to tender for services. Places such as Hull and Wrexham have benefited, and I want the same rail boost for Halifax.
	Quite simply, Halifax needs a direct train service to London if we are to encourage people out of their cars and on to the train. A direct rail link would also help to promote business growth in the town as Halifax is now a key rail centre, with more than 1 million passengers using rail services there every year.
	A direct rail link to London would also attract inward investment across the wider west Yorkshire region. That has been recognised locally: Grand Union's proposals are in line with the regeneration initiatives of Yorkshire Forward, the regional development agency, and with many local and regional transport plans. If any town deserved to be put on the mainline rail map, it is Halifax.
	Unfortunately, the process by which routes are given a green light is too slow and time consuming. The Government and the rail regulator should do much more to encourage and allow operators such as Grand Union to run services from Halifax, Bradford and other towns to London.
	As I said earlier, it is over two years since the first application was put in by Grand Union to run services but, unfortunately, it was rejected. Since then, the company has worked hard to put forward new plans. The timetables are in place, the paths are available, the rolling stock is ordered and ready to go, so what is the delay? Well, the submission is at the rail regulator as we speak, and I hope that the Minister will indicate in his reply that the Government are generally supportive of the proposals.
	Quite simply, the proposal needs the green light, and the timing for Halifax would be ideal. As the economy bites, it would be a welcome shot in the arm for the town. Feasibility studies have shown the economic and social benefits it would bring. The railway station is due for a facelift, with new investment plans in place. Local people want a direct service, as does the business community, and studies show the economic and social benefits that a direct link to London would bring to the town.
	The second-largest employer in Halifax is HBOS, about which we have all heard lots recently. It faces an uncertain future, but I remain confident that jobs will be secured and that the core of its business will remain in Halifax. Yesterday, I received a letter from the bank's general manager, outlining HBOS's support for the direct rail link. He said:
	"The Calderdale region and, of course, Halifax is a key heartland location for HBOS. A new high speed rail link to London would connect our high quality workforce in Halifax directly with the city. It would prove invaluable to the bank, our colleagues and our business partners. We would definitely welcome this new development."
	The support of HBOS is welcome; the bank's is not a lone voice among the business community in Halifax. I have spoken with business owners, such as Roger Harvey, of Harvey's department store, and many others, who said they would use the service to commute to London. They have also told me about the attractions a direct rail link to London would offer their customers and investors. We need only look at the early success of the service from Wrexham and the profile it has given north Wales to see the benefits of direct rail services for medium-sized towns.
	In a week when a report outlined that not enough has been done to promote rail growth and capacity increases over the past year, I would welcome an indication from my hon. Friend the Minister about what the Government will do to encourage and support applications such as the Grand Union bid. One of the biggest problems in driving forward the plans is the pressure from other operators to have applications turned down. Since the privatisation of the railways there has been a similar scenario to the one that occurred after bus privatisation: major operators win their tenders on the back of competition, but they frown on anyone competing with them.
	There is an interesting paradox. When routes become available on the east coast main line, the major operators raise objections to the proposals. The message seems to be, "Get your hands off our territory." If National Express is so worried about the possible success of a Bradford-Halifax-London link, it should have applied to run the service. The company's position is somewhat contradictory. It will not run services from Halifax and Bradford, but is worried about the effect such services might have on its existing core route—an admission that there is market potential.
	The rail regulator should look beyond narrow self-interest when the decision is made, and consider the facts, which are simple. There is enough identified capacity on the east coast main line to suit everyone. Everything is in place to give the Bradford to Halifax service the green light. About 40 years ago, Halifax had a direct rail link to London and today, more than ever, we need that link to be restored. Everything is in place to go and Grand Union's visionary plans deserve to be accepted. As we move through the 21st century, rail will be the answer to many of the questions about how to tackle congestion. There are already plans to provide new direct rail links to London for thousands of people throughout west Yorkshire, so it will be baffling and bizarre if those excellent service proposals are turned down.
	The return of the golden age of railways can be achieved if only the decision makers show some vision. I urge the Office of Rail Regulation to ignore false arguments from rival operators and to recognise the economic, social and investment benefits of Grand Union's plans. Now is the time to get the proposals out of the sidings, give them the green light and get places such as Halifax back on the main line map for good.

Paul Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan) on securing the debate and providing the House with an opportunity to discuss rail services on the east coast main line.
	I recognise the fervour with which my hon. Friend put the case for Halifax. She is absolutely right to say that we want the best use of the infrastructure. We want to give people the choice of getting off the roads and on to rail, and the Government are giving them those opportunities through the investment of about £88 million every week that we are making in our rail system. Of course, my hon. Friend will recognise that there are many competing demands on slots, and we want to make sure that they are used in the most practical way; as she suggested, we want to make the best use of infrastructure.
	The east coast main line is an exceptionally valuable asset in the national transport system. It provides the fastest surface transport between London, the Yorkshire and Humber region, north-east England and Edinburgh. It also provides a key route to London from the east midlands and the east of England—two of the fastest growing regions in England. It is of vital importance for freight, particularly as part of the link from major ports to distribution centres in large conurbations, and to coal-fired power stations.
	The east coast main line also supports a long-distance passenger franchise, National Express East Coast, to which my hon. Friend referred. It pays a substantial— and growing—premium to the Government, thereby reducing the taxpayer support needed for the railway as a whole. The challenges faced by the railway industry on the east coast route are principally associated with the volume of traffic and the reliability of services. Growth in the next 10 years is expected to be substantial in almost all the markets served by that route.
	My hon. Friend referred to a return to the golden era of the railways. In the past 10 years, there has been a substantial increase in the number of passenger miles travelled on the rail network; the number has reached exceptional levels. That is because of the investment made, and the work that we have done with operating companies and others who deliver the services. Passenger demand for rail has been growing strongly due to a combination of factors, including economic growth in particular. On many routes, including the east coast, that growth has been stimulated by additional services and ticketing initiatives developed by the train operators to encourage off-peak travel.
	The most significant use of long-distance passenger trains is for business and leisure travel to and from London. The high number of passengers travelling between London and cities such as Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh is due to the size and significance of those major conurbations; the transport links between them are of national economic importance. Other cities that attract large numbers of visitors include York and Durham. The locations of stations on the east coast route—the stations are typically close to city centres—makes rail particularly competitive for journeys from one city centre to another, even from London to Edinburgh.
	There is also demand for long-distance, high-speed services to London from many stations that serve towns and cities not directly on the east coast line, such as Halifax, Lincoln, Grimsby, Hull, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Harrogate, Skipton, Bradford and Huddersfield. All those towns and cities can potentially be served either by direct train services or by connecting services from stations on the main route. The question that the Office of Rail Regulation rightly has to answer, given the number of proposals from several train operators, is which towns should be served by direct trains, and which by connections.
	My hon. Friend referred to the work done in February this year, when Network Rail published its route utilisation strategy for the east coast main line. The strategy, compiled with the assistance of industry parties and other key stakeholders, considered the current and future freight and passenger markets, and assessed the future growth of each. It then sought to show how that growth could be accommodated effectively and efficiently, and proposed measures ranging from the lengthening of trains to the provision of additional infrastructure. The route utilisation strategy recommended that additional long-distance, high-speed passenger services should run to and from King's Cross, in both the peak and off-peak hours. That strategy is expected to cater adequately for forecast growth in passenger demand at least until the end of the route utilisation strategy study period in 2016.
	In the longer term, increasing train capacity through the use of the new, high-capacity inter-city express trains, and increasing network capacity by the roll-out of 21st century signalling technology in the form of the European rail traffic management system, might create the potential to deliver a doubling of capacity. However, it will be several years before those enhancements can be delivered, and the Government therefore believe that it is necessary to develop and implement an improved timetable in the shorter term, using essentially the current infrastructure.
	We recognise that any increase in service frequency in advance of infrastructure enhancements is likely to be limited to the off-peak periods when the performance impact of such an increase can be largely offset by improvements to the structure of the timetable, including the adoption of a regular repeating service pattern. Owing to the significance of the route, it is especially important that Network Rail and the Office of Rail Regulation should take particular care to ensure that the trains and train operators granted access to run on the route should be the ones that will make the best use of it, and make the greatest contribution to the economic health of the regions that the route serves—a point mentioned by my hon. Friend—and to the financial health of the railway system.
	I shall take a few moments to outline the process by which those decisions are reached and will be shortly concluded. Simultaneously with the publication of Network Rail's rail utilisation strategy in February, the Office of Rail Regulation sought from train operators—freight and passenger, franchised and non-franchised—forecasts of the number of additional train paths they would need to satisfy their business aspirations over the next few years. Sixteen train operators provided substantive responses, including Grand Northern, which applied for six return weekday paths between Bradford and King's Cross and four at weekends; Grand Central, which applied for an additional daily path to Sunderland; Hull Trains, which applied for four daily services between Harrogate and King's Cross via York; and National Express East Coast, which applied for a fifth path each hour, running in alternate hours to Lincoln and to York. In addition, several freight operators registered expectations of additional long-distance traffic flows, and a new passenger operator, Platinum Trains, has subsequently applied to run two trains per day to and from Aberdeen, running non-stop between Edinburgh and London.
	The ORR has sensibly decided to consider all those aspirations for long-term capacity together and has put in hand the detailed analysis of the various plans necessary before it can be in a position to determine the best long-term allocation of capacity. It is recognised that many of the prospective operators will need to invest large sums of money, particularly in rolling stock, so they need time to plan ahead and assurances that they will be able to operate the services for a reasonable number of years.
	Accordingly, the ORR asked Network Rail to produce a capacity and performance report analysing the various aspirations against available capacity. That report was published on 26 September this year and set out the extent to which the stated requirements of all operators, including freight, can be met; the level of flexing to existing rights, and changes to the existing timetable, that would be required to meet operators' stated requirements; and the likely impact of such changes on reliability and punctuality. Network Rail's report demonstrates conclusively that it is possible to produce a satisfactory timetable that can include six passenger services and one freight service every hour, and that such a timetable is not inconsistent with an acceptable level of future performance. The report recognises that there are many ways in which the detailed content of the timetable might be constructed, but it does not identify the optimum timetabling solution; nor does it assess the impact on services on the routes that adjoin the east coast main line.
	Many of the uncertainties could be resolved if the ORR were to reach a preliminary decision on its preferred option for the allocation of capacity. Such a decision would be based on economic analysis and other high-level considerations such as the impact on future major investment in the east coast main line. Such a preliminary decision would be possible in a relatively short period without the production of a full timetabling solution, and it would enable the ORR to make its final decisions with a sound understanding of the practical considerations. However, the ORR has a substantial task in reaching even a preliminary decision, because that involves a careful balancing of its statutory duties. It has to promote the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of passengers and goods, and the development of that railway network, to the greatest extent that it considers economically practicable; to promote competition; to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses; and to have regard to the funds that are available.
	I recognise the issues that my hon. Friend has raised as regards Halifax. Of course, some of them can be accommodated in various ways, but opening access and providing the services that she is looking for would require a substantial amount of work and involves need to find opportunities in the context of limited capacity—even though there is increased capacity available—to meet the aspirations of all those who seek to run additional services.
	In conclusion, those are just some of the matters that the ORR will need to take into account in the assessment that it is making, which is due shortly. It needs to make the decision on the basis of the various applications that it has before it. I have no doubt that of the 10 cities and towns that I listed, some will gain new direct London trains in the next two years, but I suspect that they cannot all be successful. I recognise the case that is being put forward for Halifax and the obvious hard work and commitment of my hon. Friend in seeking those direct services. Equally, I have no doubt that she is aware of the complexities that exist. As she recognised, this is not a simple matter, because of the complexities involved in getting the best out of the infrastructure that we have. She will also know, however, that we are putting substantial resources into increasing capacity now and in future, and that is part of the work that is being undertaken by Network Rail and the rail industry.
	I support increased capacity and increased rail opportunities throughout the length and breadth of the country. I recognise my hon. Friend's commitment to Halifax and congratulate her on securing this debate.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eight o'clock.